Hebrews wrap up

The book of Hebrews, as its name implies, is written exclusively for Hebrew believers in Jesus. It was written at an unknown time, around the first two centuries of the christian era, by an unknown author, who does not claim to be inspired or to be writing the word of god. Hebrews defines the gospel as the teaching that there is still "god's sabbath rest",  or an afterlife to come, for the believing Jews. In the old covenant, god's rest had to do with rest or freedom from from dealing with their enemies in the land God gave the Hebrews. When this book was written, there probably was still no rest from dealing with enemies in the land of the Hebrews, even after centuries of living under the old covenant. A new interpretation is being made of "god's rest," along with everything else associated with the old covenant.

This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make  gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.

The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of  bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.

The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.

The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot,  he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.

No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures    or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.

I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.

Mark part thirteen

We are now at Mark 7:24. Have you noticed that in Mark, each event seems to happen immediately after the last, in quick succession. There is no real sense of how much time has actually passed since Jesus started preaching. There is also quite a bit of vagueness as to specifically where Jesus was. We get regions and vicinities, as in this next passage. Jesus is said to have left "that place" (what place?) and to have gone to the vicinity of Tyre. Keep in mind that Tyre is not Jewish territory. Jesus was the outsider there. We are told he tried to keep his presence there a secret, but we are not told why. Also wouldn't he have known that wasn't going to work?

While Jesus was in the vicinity of Tyre, a Greek Syro-Phoenician woman (a native of that area) came to Jesus to beg him to drive a demon out of her daughter. Here is another Gentile with a demon. Now comes an extraordinary dialog. Jesus tells the woman, "First let the children eat all they want, For it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." This is quite shocking because the clear implication is that the "children of Israel" are more precious to god and deserving of healing than this woman's daughter and her people. He is calling them dogs, a clear insult. This is a definite example of prejudice, and by Jesus. Unbelievably, the woman replies, "Yes Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Jesus is impressed with the woman's sassy answer and heals her daughter long distance. So, the only thing Jesus did in Tyre was heal a little girl that he never saw, of a demon that she probably didn't have, while trying to remain incognito? And how did the author of Mark come to know this story? How could anyone have known if it was true?

Then Jesus left that area and into the region of the Decapolis, Gentile territory again. There he heals a  deaf and mute man. First he takes the man away from the crowd. Why? Wouldn't these miracles be more believable the more people saw them? Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears, then spit, then touched the man's tongue. Ewww. Jesus then looked up to heaven, heaved a big sigh, and said, "Be opened!" Very dramatic. Of course the man began to hear and speak again or we wouldn't have the story. Jesus commanded the people present not to tell anyone, which of course was futile, as he should have known. They spread the news about how wonderful Jesus was. Again, from where did the author of Mark get this story? And how could anyone know if it was true?

We get to chapter eight and another vague time reference, "During those days, another large crowd gathered."  We are not told anything about the location, except that it is remote, again. Again, the people needed to be fed. Again, the disciples ask about how to feed them. Again, Jesus asks how many loaves the disciples have. Last time they had five loaves and two fish. 5+2=7. Seven is a magic number. This time there are seven loaves and a few small fish. This time there were seven baskets of leftovers. Four thousand males were present.(100x40, 40 being another magic number) Again, females don't count. Again, what was done with the leftovers, which were presumably edible?

Afterward Jesus and his disciples got in the boat (Wait! What boat?) and headed to "the region" of Dalmanutha. Funny, There is no reason to believe Dalmanutha ever existed. Here is one man's take on the subject. (Link) The pharisees just happened to appear there to question Jesus. Those Pharisees got around. However, they don't seem to have been around in the places Jesus is supposed to have performed miracles. They asked Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus blew them off with a non-insult insult. "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given it." (Get out of here, I'm not going to show you my gun.) The Pharisees were skeptics, good for them.

After that brief encounter the disciples amd Jesus all pile back in the boat and cross the lake again.

Titus part three

The last post only covered verse six of chapter one. Now we move on to verse seven. This verse uses the word overseer in the NIV, but it is still talking about the elder. Now, instead of the character of the elder's wife and children, Paul addresses the elder's character. He must not be overbearing, quick-tempered, a drunk, a violent person, or a crook. "He must be hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firmly on to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Let's pause.

The elder is not to deviate from the message he was taught. If this letter is not a fake, the message is none other than Paul's message. There were no Christian scriptures at the time. The message came by word of mouth. There doesn't appear to be any epistle to the Cretans. It is considered trustworthy by Paul if it originated from him. His doctrine is the only sound doctrine. Since Paul addresses those who would oppose it, it is certain that there were already persons opposing it.

Paul died before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, probably in the 60's. So, in the thirty years between Jesus's death and Paul's, minus fourteen years in the wilderness. Paul probably travelled and preached his message approximately 15 years. In that time, he came to expect his teachings about Jesus to be the standard. The "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, most likely came later. It is possible Mark was produced during Paul's lifetime, but there is no indication Paul heard of it or read it. If he did, he may have even regarded it as a false gospel.

Who would oppose Paul's gospel of salvation and spiritual equality for the gentiles? Obviously Jews. I imagine Yahweh believing gentiles would have  been his easiest targets. Those who profited by the pagan traditions would also have been offended. Verse 10 goes on to say "There are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially among the circumcision group." AKA Jews. Yep. Verse 11: "They must be silenced (???), because they are ruining whole households by teaching what they ought not to teach-- for the sake of dishonest gain." The dishonest gain is not elaborated on. Perhaps local Jews charged fees for the circumcision of converting gentiles? Who knows.

Verse 12-13 says, "Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and pay no attention to Jewish myths (???) or to the commands of those who reject the truth." (Did Paul completely reject the whole Jewish mythos now contained in the Old Testament?) Read about the Cretan Epimenides and his statement about Cretans here. The statement is often considered a paradox because Epimenides was a Cretan himself, which would make him a liar. However, the statement originally occurred in the context of a poem:

"They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

I wonder if Paul knew he was quoting a poem about the immortality of Zeus? The fourth line of this poem also occurs in Acts 17:28. There, Paul tells the Athenians it was from one of their  own poets, He appears to be either referring to Yahweh, or equating Yahweh with Zeus. That would be interesting.

 At any rate, the phrase as it appears in Titus is downright insulting of the Cretans, the very people whom Paul wants to be good little Paulites, um, Christians. 

Colossians part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

I used to like Paul. Not so much anymore.

More to come.

Ephesians chapter 4, part 2

*Starting at verse 17: Now, the author, who is writing this letter to gentiles, tells these gentiles not to act like gentiles. Gentiles, he says, are futile in their thinking, darkened in their understanding, sparated from god, ignorant in understanding, and hard hearted. They have given themselves over to sensuality with a continual lust for more. (I wonder if any were offended by this letter.)

*These particular gentiles know better, because they were taught in accordance with the truth in Jesus. They were taught to put off their old selves, to take on new mental attitudes, and to put on a new self, created to be like god, in true righteousness and holiness. The way to do this is to stop lying and speak truthfully. (So far, so good.) They are to practice self control when angry. (Not bad.) They are to not go to bed angry because the devil will get a foothold. (Wackadoodle. The devil has feet?) They are to give up stealing(Good) and work with their own hands so they can share with those in need. (Admirable) So far, all these things are basic "do unto others" morality, which probably already existed in that society.

*Next they are told not to let unwholesome talk cone out of their mouths, but only that which is helpful for building other up, to their benefit. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable standard of conduct, if you are interested in the wellbeing of all humanity. After that, they are told not to "grieve the Holy Spirit with whom you are sealed for the day of redemption." What that actually means is a mystery. My study bible says this proves the holy spirit is a person, because only people can be grieved.  Finally, they are told to get rid of bitterness, rage, anger, brawling, slander, and malice. They are to be kind and compassionate. All these positive qualities are not exclusive to christianity. They also have not been  universally practiced by all christians everywhere. The internet alone is full of christians who daily prove they do not adhere to these principles.

*Very last they are told to forgive each other, just as in christ god forgave them. This is a sticky topic. Are there no limits to forgiveness? How is that accomplished in a practical sense? What does it mean to forgive a murderer or an abuser? Vile people can just claim god's forgiveness? What is the proof that they have actually been forgiven by a god? In my experience as a former christian, it means I have to be civil, accept the society of that person without public drama, and not carry on a personal feud or vendetta. I'm not so sure that is always the best course of action. Sometimes people need to be called out, avoided, or punished by humanity for their horrible deeds.

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?

Ephesians chapter 2, part 2

We pick back up at 2:11.

*Paul now talks about the previous difference between gentiles and jews. The gentiles being uncircumcised, were excluded from citzenship in Israel and the covenants of the promise, without hope, and without god. Interestingly, the phrase "without god" is translated from the greek atheoi, which makes it seem that Paul is saying they were basically atheists when it came to the god of Israel.
He also says they were separated from Christ. That is even more interesting. Did Christ not preach salvation of/to the gentiles?

*That doesn't matter now, according to the author. The blood of christ on the cross destroyed the invisible  barrier between the two peoples by abolishing  the law in his flesh, so both Jews and gentiles could be united. Now everyone has access to the father by one spirit. Now they are all members of god's  household, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. Together they are a holy temple, a dwelling in which god lives.

*This  is somewhat different than what Paul said in Galatians. In chapters 4 and 5, Paul comes down hard in favor of the gentiles being the children of the promise. He calls them "the children of the free woman" and the Jews "the  children of the slave woman." Then he goes on to say "the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."  That is in direct contrast to chapter two of Ephesians, which has the Jews and gentiles sharing god as their father in one big happy family. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jesus and gentiles part 5

Now we look at the book of John

*This is interesting. After a quick skim through the book, I found NO references to Jesus interacting with or talking about Gentiles. There is the incident with the Samaritan woman at the well, only found in John. But I haven't been counting Samaritans as Gentiles, even in the other gospel accounts, because they have a unique relationship with the Jews and worship the same god. John does talk about "the world" a lot, but he seems to be referring to his immediate surroundings and the Jewish community,  not the entire world.

Another interesting thing I found this dialog in John 9:48-49: "The Jews answered him,"Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?" "I am not posessed by a demon," said Jesus....   Jesus denies being possessed by a demon but he never denies being a Samaritan! Of course, in the story of the woman at the well, Jesus is clearly a Jew. However, wouldn't that be a fascinating twist if the actual historical Jesus (presuming he existed) turned out to have been a Samaritan. Perhaps that was an early accusation that Jews made about the Jesus sect.

Also, at the end of John, there is no comission to the apostles to go out and spread the gospel to all nations. There is only the instruction of Peter to "feed my sheep." Who were his sheep?

*There you have it. The sum of Jesus's interactions with, and words about, gentiles. I may have missed one or two small things. Even so, it doesn't seem to add up to much, a couple of exorcisms, a healing, and an exhortation to the disciples to preach to all nations. The two exorcisms were couched in the insulting terms of pigs and dogs. Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain the story of the mad man and the pigs. Luke doesn't have the story of the gentile woman with the demon possessed daughter. Mark doesn't have the story of the centurian. Luke's explanation for the healing of the centurian's servant was that the Centurian had built a synogogue for the Jews, so he deserved it.

Jeusus and gentiles part 4

We continue to look at the book of Matthew.

*In chapter 15 of Matthew, we read a repetition of the story found in Mark of the non-jewish woman who had a daughter possessed by a demon/evil spirit. In Mark the woman was a Greek. In Matthew she was a Canaanite. In Matthew, Jesus significantly tells the woman,"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." He did not say that in Mark. Also, in Mark, Jesus admires the woman's reply to his implication that non Jews are dogs. In Matthew, he admires her faith.

*At the very end of Matthew, we read another version of the "great commission." There
Jesus tells the remaining eleven disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit." This passage seems to clearly indicate that the disciple should have been out teaching gentiles after Jesus's ascension. However, we saw in Galatians and Acts that both Peter and Paul had to explain their ministries to the Gentiles and approval was sought from the jerusalem council of Jewish christians. Why weren't all the disciples out teaching and baptising "all nations?" There are traditions that this happened, such as Thomas in India, but there is no evidence.

Now let's take a look at Luke.

*In chapter 7, we have repetition of Jesus healing the centurian's servant, also found in Matthew 8. Here we are told people pleaded with Jesus that the centurian deserved the consideration of Jesus because "he loves our nation and has built our synogogue." In Matthew, the Centurian speaks directly to Jesus. In Luke, they communicate through friends.

*In Luke 8, we have a repetition of the story of the demon possessed man and the pigs, also found in  Mark and Matthew. This version is more like Mark's.

*I didn't notice anything else until Luke 24, where, instead of the great commission, Jesus tells the disciples, "This is what is written: The christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations (presumably including Gentiles), beginning at Jerusalem." First of all there is no OT scripture that actually says this. It is cobbled together from various passages in Psalms and Isaiah, which most likely were not originally intended to refer to Jesus. My study bible gives these references: Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Psalm 16:8-11, Isaiah 49. There are references to suffering and  passages that coincide with the NT descriptions of Jesus's death. We are told "All the families of the nations will bow down before him" (him being Yahweh). We are told Israel will be made a light to the gentiles. We are told a suffering servant will bear the sins/iniquities of many. But... We are not told all these things clearly in one place. We are definitely not told that a particular person called the christ will rise on the third day and people will preach in his name. That is something the (unknown) author of Luke made up.

So, I did some more looking into the "third day" claim. I found Hosea 6:2 that says, "After two days  he will revive us, on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence." The study bible does not claim this has any relationship to Jesus rising on the third day, good for them. There are numerous references to things happening on third days, a number of days that is very popular in the OT. But none of them seem to suggest the resurrection of a christ in any way. So why have Jesus raised on the third day? Well, the story of Yahweh appearing on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 may be the inspiration. After a period of three days, god appears with thunder and lightening and a loud trumpet blast. It doesn't really fit, but that's all I have.

Jesus and gentiles part 3

Today, I will skim through the book of Matthew, looking for Jesus's interactions with, or statements about, gentiles.

*The first thing I notice is the visit of the magi to the infant/child Jesus in chapter 2. They surely weren't Jews, so why did they recieve a debatable astronomical revelation of the birth of "The king of the Jews?" My study bible says it is because Matthew (actually an unknown person who wrote the book of Matthew) wants to show that people of all nations acknowledged Jesus as king of the Jews and worshipped him as lord.  How can they say that these magi represented "all nations" when all that is said about them is "they came from the east?" This story is not found in any other part of the bible.

*At the end of chapter 4, we are told that large crowds of people followed Jesus around as he performed miraculous healings, including people from the decapolis and across the Jordan, which were gentile regions. In spite of this, there are no contemporary records of Jesus or his activities.

*In Chapter 8, a Roman centurian asks for help because his servant is ill. Jesus offers to go heal him but the centurian says he is not worthy to have Jesus in his home and requests that the servant be healed long distance. Then we have a significant statement from Jesus, who is astonished at the centurian's faith. (One wonders why he is astonished if he is god in the flesh and has read people's thoughts in other passages.) Jesus says,"I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." The servant was healed.

*At the end of chapter 8, we have a repetition of the story of the demon possessed man and the pigs, found in the book of Mark. However, here there are two mad men, not one.The people still asked him to leave.

*In chapter 10, Jesus gives his twelve  disciples authority to heal, then sends them out with this admonition, "Do not go among the gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." Later in the passage Jesus prophesies to them,"On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the gentiles." There is no contemporary extrabiblical record of this happening to the twelve. This passage is very similar, word for word in parts, to Luke chapter 10. However, in Luke, Jesus sends out seventy-two others, two by two. This also occurs in Mark 6, where the twelve disciples are sent out two by two. Neither the Mark nor Luke accounts have Jesus telling the disciple not to go to the gentiles.

It is interesting to note that, according to my study bible,  some manuscripts record Jesus sending out seventy people not seventy two. That actually makes more sense when we remember that 70 is one of the special significant Jewish numbers. In fact the greek translation of Hebrew scriptures in Jesus's day was the Septuagint, which means seventy.

To be continued.

Edited to correct an error.

Jesus and Gentiles part 2

Let's look at Jesus's actions and words regarding Gentiles in Mark:

*Mark 5 has Jesus crossing the lake (the sea of galilee)  to a region east of the Jordon called the Gerasenes, part of a larger area called the decapolis. This region was Greco-Roman in culture, not Jewish. There Jesus casts a legion of demons out of a mad man into a herd of 2 thousand pigs. The pigs go crazy and run  into the lake, killing themselves, and probably destroying at least one person's livelihood. But remember, pigs were "unclean" to the Jews. The people of that region are disturbed by this and beg that Jesus leave the area. As he is getting into the boat to head back, the man who is no longer possessed begs to go back with him. Jesus says no and encourages him to spread the word about what "the lord" did for him. He supposedly did so, and all the people who heard it were amazed. Of course there is no extrabiblical corroboration. Also the region mentioned is not even next to the Sea of Galilee.

*Jesus's next recorded encounter with a gentile in the book of Mark is in chapter 7. There,  a Greek Syro-Phoenician woman begs him to drive a demon out of her daughter. Jesus replies with, "it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." The implication here is that the Jews are the children of god and non Jews are the metaphorical equivalent of dogs. Well, that's not a very loving statement, is it? The woman appears to take this in stride and says, "even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Jesus appreciates her logic and heals her child.

*After skimming through the rest of Mark, the only other possible reference to gentiles I can find is at the end of the 16th chapter. There Jesus is said to have given " the great commission," telling the apostles to "go out into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation," presumably gentiles as well as Jews. The problem with this passage is that it may not have been in the original version of the book of Mark.

Jesus and Gentiles part 1

*In Galatians we see that the salvation of the Gentiles was Paul's mission in life, Peter's was to the Jews. Paul believed he was commissioned to go preach about Jesus to the Gentiles by Jesus himself, in visions and disembodied voices. He believed that following the law of moses couldn't make a person unsinful (righteous). Faith in Jesus is what did that. Therefore, no one, especially not Gentiles, was obligated to follow the law of moses, including circumcision. The gentile part was agreed upon by Peter, James and John after a council in Jerusalem, with no exceptions but remembering to take care of the poor. They agreed that they would go to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles.

*In Acts, we see both Paul and Peter being commissioned by visions to go to the Gentiles. They both tell their stories to the Jews in Jerusalem, who accept them. Also in Acts 11:20, some Greeks are spreading the "good news" about Jesus to the Gentiles in Antioch. Then Barnabas is sent by the Jews in Jerusalem to check out the believers in Antioch. He was pleased by what he saw, so he went to Tarsus to fetch Paul, where he had presumably been staying since he was sent there by the Jerusalem Jews back in Acts 9:30, a different story than the one Paul tells in Galatians. Paul and Barnabas then worked together in Antioch teaching great numbers of people. Eventually, the circumcision question arises, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, a council is held, and it is agreed that Gentiles don't have to follow any of the law of moses...except for refraining from eating blood, meat sacrificed to idols, and engaging in sexual immorality.

*Here we have two versions of how Gentiles came to become believers in Jesus, along with many
Jews. Which version is the true one? Or did it happen a totally different way? We know for a fact it had to have begun somehow because the majority of  christians today are Gentiles, yet christianity has its roots in Judaism. These stories led me to wonder, what would have happened if Paul and Peter had not supposedly claimed to have had personal revelations concerning the Gentiles? If Jesus actually existed, would his teachings as recorded in the gospels alone have been sufficient to create the worldwide phenomenon of Gentile christianity? What did Jesus have to say about and to Gentiles? Did he advocate eventual disposing of the law of Moses? Why was it necessary for Paul and Peter to get special messages? Was Jesus's message while he was alive not clear on the subject? Over the next few posts, we will look at Jesus's words in the gospel to se if we can answer some of these questions.