We have arrived at 1Peter 2:18. Last time, the author was telling his "free" readers to submit to the governing authorities. Now he is telling the slaves to submit to their masters, "with all respect." Not only to the good ones, but also the abusive ones that make them suffer unjustly. Why? Because it's commendable! And who is going to commend them, the bad master? Look what a great job you are doing being brave while he beats you. God loves you for it. Really? Or is this teaching because the author doesn't want christians to have a reputation for fighting against injustice? It's embarrassing and draws unwanted attention. Instead, he wants them to believe that the real credit is in suffering for doing good. The same exact suffering, for rebelling, gets you no points with god.
Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9, "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.
Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.
The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?
Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.
Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!
Showing posts with label Isaiah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Isaiah. Show all posts
Friday, May 31, 2019
Thursday, May 30, 2019
1 Peter part three
We are now in chapter two of 1 Peter. The readers are told to rid themselves of "all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind." Worthy goals, I think, depending on how each vice is defined. The readers are also told to "crave pure spiritual milk" like newborn babies, so that they will grow up in their salvation. Funny, in Hebrews, the readers were told they needed to quit milk and eat solid food, so they wouldn't be babies forever, metaphorically speaking, of course.
Speaking of metaphors, we are heading into another one. This one is about Jesus being the precious living cornerstone of a spiritual house. He was rejected by men but chosen by god. The readers are also living stones in this spiritual house. Then the author mixes his metaphors and says the readers are also a holy priesthood making spiritual sacrifices to god, through Jesus.
The author's proof of this stony metaphor is a quote from Isaiah 28:16, "See, I lay a stone in Zion, (a tested stone) a chosen and precious cornerstone (for a sure foundation), and the one who trusts in him ("in him" is not in my version of Isaiah) will never be put to shame (in Isaiah, it's "dismayed" instead of "put to shame)." Differences in my bible's 1Peter quote and my bible's Isaiah passage are in parentheses. Notice that Isaiah does not actually refer to the cornerstone as if it were an individual. Also notice that this stone, which Peter wants to be Jesus, is a foundation cornerstone.
The author says this stone is precious to those who believe, but for unbelievers he has another quote, from Psalm 118:22. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone." Wait a minute. This is also supposed to be referring to Jesus, but now he is a capstone! Which is it, cornerstone or capstone? Next, the author quotes Isaiah 8:14 "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." In Isaiah this particular stone is referring to Yahweh. The author of 1 Peter thinks it's supposed to be Jesus, but now Jesus is a nuisance rock, tripping people up. No matter which quote you use, Jesus appears to be compared to a rock of some kind. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Stumbling on the rock is a consequence of disobedience. People who do that are just fulfilling their destiny. Ouch. But the readers, they are the chosen people, a holy nation, a people belonging to god. Again, is the author speaking to Jews or gentiles or a mix? It might be gentiles because next he says that god called them "out of darkness into his wonderful light." Once they were not a people, but now they are the people of god. Or, it could be Jews, because he calls them aliens and strangers in the world, who need to be a good example for the pagans. That's so the pagans will glorify god when he finally comes for a visit. Seriously? I don't see that happening.
The readers are told to submit themselves "for the lord's sake to every authority instituted among men; whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him (the king) to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." So much for christian civil disobedience. Here is good old fashioned authoritarianism. It's god's will that by doing good (obeying the authorities) the readers will silence the gossip about them. (What is the gossip about them?) They are to live as free men, but not to use their freedom as a cover up for evil. How does that look in real life? They are to "show proper respect to everyone, love the brotherhood of believers, fear god, and honor the king." Even if he is a tyrant?
Till next time.
Speaking of metaphors, we are heading into another one. This one is about Jesus being the precious living cornerstone of a spiritual house. He was rejected by men but chosen by god. The readers are also living stones in this spiritual house. Then the author mixes his metaphors and says the readers are also a holy priesthood making spiritual sacrifices to god, through Jesus.
The author's proof of this stony metaphor is a quote from Isaiah 28:16, "See, I lay a stone in Zion, (a tested stone) a chosen and precious cornerstone (for a sure foundation), and the one who trusts in him ("in him" is not in my version of Isaiah) will never be put to shame (in Isaiah, it's "dismayed" instead of "put to shame)." Differences in my bible's 1Peter quote and my bible's Isaiah passage are in parentheses. Notice that Isaiah does not actually refer to the cornerstone as if it were an individual. Also notice that this stone, which Peter wants to be Jesus, is a foundation cornerstone.
The author says this stone is precious to those who believe, but for unbelievers he has another quote, from Psalm 118:22. "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone." Wait a minute. This is also supposed to be referring to Jesus, but now he is a capstone! Which is it, cornerstone or capstone? Next, the author quotes Isaiah 8:14 "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." In Isaiah this particular stone is referring to Yahweh. The author of 1 Peter thinks it's supposed to be Jesus, but now Jesus is a nuisance rock, tripping people up. No matter which quote you use, Jesus appears to be compared to a rock of some kind. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Stumbling on the rock is a consequence of disobedience. People who do that are just fulfilling their destiny. Ouch. But the readers, they are the chosen people, a holy nation, a people belonging to god. Again, is the author speaking to Jews or gentiles or a mix? It might be gentiles because next he says that god called them "out of darkness into his wonderful light." Once they were not a people, but now they are the people of god. Or, it could be Jews, because he calls them aliens and strangers in the world, who need to be a good example for the pagans. That's so the pagans will glorify god when he finally comes for a visit. Seriously? I don't see that happening.
The readers are told to submit themselves "for the lord's sake to every authority instituted among men; whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him (the king) to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right." So much for christian civil disobedience. Here is good old fashioned authoritarianism. It's god's will that by doing good (obeying the authorities) the readers will silence the gossip about them. (What is the gossip about them?) They are to live as free men, but not to use their freedom as a cover up for evil. How does that look in real life? They are to "show proper respect to everyone, love the brotherhood of believers, fear god, and honor the king." Even if he is a tyrant?
Till next time.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
1 Peter part two
We are at 1 Peter 1:10. The author tells the reader that "prophets (which prophets?) who spoke of the grace ( what's grace?) to come to you searched intently (what did they search?) and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the spirit of christ in them was pointing (You mean the "spirit of christ "didn't make it clear? Imagine that! ) when he predicted the sufferings of christ and the glories that would follow. Supposedly, even though the time and circumstances of the sufferings of christ weren't revealed to the aforementioned prophets, it was revealed that they weren't serving themselves but the readers of this letter! The prophets spoke of the things that have been told to the readers by those who preached the gospel to them, by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.
Okay, so, the letter readers got their version of the gospel, whatever that was, from people who got the gospel message from the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, not Jesus. And all this was supposedly prophesied, but we don't know when, where, or by whom, and we are given no quotes. But even angels want to know about this stuff. Riiight.
Therefore, the recipients of the letter are to prepare their minds for action, set their hopes fully on the grace (What's grace?) to be given them when Jesus christ is revealed. Wait. Jesus hasn't been revealed yet? They are also to be obedient, and holy in everything they do, because god is holy. What does holy mean and how do mortals attain holiness if it's a god thing?
In verse 17, God is referred to as a father who judges each man's work impartially. (What about women's work? ) That's why they should live as strangers on the earth, in reverent fear. (Be afraid!) They weren't redeemed with silver and gold from the empty way of life handed down from the ancestors. In this context, redemption is probably a metaphorical reference to being freed from slavery buy having their debt paid off or freedom purchased. They were redeemed by the blood of christ, who is described as a lamb without blemish or defect, chosen before the creation of the world. So, before lambs, blood, sacrifices, altars, etc., were even twinkles in god's eye, he knew he was going to sacrifice Jesus. That's weirdly specific don't you think? And very odd. Before he created anything, god decided to make his human/god son (who wasn't all human yet so how was he a "son?" ) a blood sacrifice to pay for the redemption of people he hadn't created yet.
All this was revealed in those "last times," for their sake. Those "last times" were almost two thousand years ago. Through Jesus, they believe in god, who raised Jesus from the dead. So, their faith and hope are actually in god. Does this mean they believed in Jesus first? They must be gentiles. According to the author they purified themselves by obeying the truth. Obedience to the truth seems to entail loving each other deeply and sincerely, from the heart. They do this because they have been born again, not from biological sperm (seed), but from imperishable seed "through the living and enduring word of god." In other words, invisible and metaphorical mumbo jumbo some how makes them have a renewed life.
Next, we have a quote from Isaiah 40:6-8 about the word of god, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, (because the breath of the lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass) but the word of the lord stands forever." The words in parentheses are in Isaiah but not in 1 Peter. How comforting and encouraging for the author to remind the reader of their eventual demise. However, he seems to forget that without people there wouldn't be transmission of, or need for, a word of god. When people disappear, so does god.
Okay, so, the letter readers got their version of the gospel, whatever that was, from people who got the gospel message from the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, not Jesus. And all this was supposedly prophesied, but we don't know when, where, or by whom, and we are given no quotes. But even angels want to know about this stuff. Riiight.
Therefore, the recipients of the letter are to prepare their minds for action, set their hopes fully on the grace (What's grace?) to be given them when Jesus christ is revealed. Wait. Jesus hasn't been revealed yet? They are also to be obedient, and holy in everything they do, because god is holy. What does holy mean and how do mortals attain holiness if it's a god thing?
In verse 17, God is referred to as a father who judges each man's work impartially. (What about women's work? ) That's why they should live as strangers on the earth, in reverent fear. (Be afraid!) They weren't redeemed with silver and gold from the empty way of life handed down from the ancestors. In this context, redemption is probably a metaphorical reference to being freed from slavery buy having their debt paid off or freedom purchased. They were redeemed by the blood of christ, who is described as a lamb without blemish or defect, chosen before the creation of the world. So, before lambs, blood, sacrifices, altars, etc., were even twinkles in god's eye, he knew he was going to sacrifice Jesus. That's weirdly specific don't you think? And very odd. Before he created anything, god decided to make his human/god son (who wasn't all human yet so how was he a "son?" ) a blood sacrifice to pay for the redemption of people he hadn't created yet.
All this was revealed in those "last times," for their sake. Those "last times" were almost two thousand years ago. Through Jesus, they believe in god, who raised Jesus from the dead. So, their faith and hope are actually in god. Does this mean they believed in Jesus first? They must be gentiles. According to the author they purified themselves by obeying the truth. Obedience to the truth seems to entail loving each other deeply and sincerely, from the heart. They do this because they have been born again, not from biological sperm (seed), but from imperishable seed "through the living and enduring word of god." In other words, invisible and metaphorical mumbo jumbo some how makes them have a renewed life.
Next, we have a quote from Isaiah 40:6-8 about the word of god, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, (because the breath of the lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass) but the word of the lord stands forever." The words in parentheses are in Isaiah but not in 1 Peter. How comforting and encouraging for the author to remind the reader of their eventual demise. However, he seems to forget that without people there wouldn't be transmission of, or need for, a word of god. When people disappear, so does god.
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Hebrews part sixteen
We are currently at Hebrews 11:32. The author does some name dropping here. He says Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets, all did amazing things because of faith. We are told about some of those recorded events. Go back to the old testament and read about each of those people. They also did some horrendous things, according to the stories. In fact a couple of them were pretty horrible people. The author also clearly alludes to Daniel but does not mention his name. But none of that matters, does it, because there is no reason to believe any of it actually happened. Yet again, if any of it did happen, it clearly was not because of faith in Jesus and a far distant resurrection.
Verses 35-38 describe tortures, persecutions, mistreatments, and trials, endured for the gain of a better resurrection. Better than what? "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." What exactly was promised anyway? According to the author, "God planned something better for us (the Hebrews) so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Great. It took hundreds of years and immeasurable death, pain, and suffering, but God's had a plan that's coming together perfectly right now, as in 2,000 years ago. Maybe.
We are now in chapter twelve. I managed to escape faith in god. What about you? The author continues on by claiming all the aforementioned characters as witnesses to god's plan. That should be enough, he says, to make the readers throw off whatever is holding them back and run the race with perseverance. The goal: Jesus, "the author and perfecter of our faith." He was so looking forward to the pleasure of perfecting their faith that he endured the shame and pain of the cross. What's six hours in trade for an eternity at the right hand of god? When the reader gets tired and loses heart, he can think about Jesus, who also endured opposition from sinful men. So waht if their pain lasts years instead of hours.
Now the Hebrews writer gets deadly serious. The readers haven't yet laid their blood on the line for Jesus. What's up with that? They've also forgotten Proverbs 3:11-12, which addresses them as sons (them as in the readers, or the Hebrews of all time?). It says, " My son, do not make light of the lord's discipline and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the lord disciplines those he loves." Oh, but the author of Hebrews does not stop there. He adds one more bit that isn't in the Psalm, as though it is actually part of it. "And he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." My study bible states that the word punish here means "to whip." This is corporal punishment, from god, and is evidence that the Hebrew writer made stuff up to influence his readers into believing that hardships endured were a direct proof of god's love for them. He is prepping them for martyrdom.
The author continues on in this vein, declaring that god is treating them as his sons by disciplining them, because aren't all sons disciplined. Obviously the Hebrew writer must have been, because, according to him, discipline makes you a true son, not an illegitimate one. (We all know illegitimate children never get disciplined). What?! The author says we respect our human fathers for disciplining us. Maybe he did, but it is clear that is not universal. Nevertheless, to the author, that is proof we should obey "the father of our spirits" even more "and live!" (The implication being that we won't get eternal life if we don't.) Supposedly, just like our fathers, god disciplines us because he thinks it is for our own good. (I think a father's harsh discipline is usually for the father's own good.) We think discipline is painful when it is happening, but the author wants us to see the long term benefits. "It produces a harvest of righteousness and peace." For whom?
Verse twelve calls the readers weaklings with feeble arms and weak knees who need to walk on straight paths so they will be healed. This makes no sense in the surrounding context. However it appears to partly be a reference to Isaiah 35:3, which is part of an admonition to "be strong, do not fear; your god will come...with vengeance, with divine retribution...to save you." Now that makes more sense. Why didn't the author quote the whole passage? Maybe he didn't want to give them false hope. Instead he combined a small bit of it with another small bit from Proverbs 4:26 and made nonsense. Till next time.
Till next time
Verses 35-38 describe tortures, persecutions, mistreatments, and trials, endured for the gain of a better resurrection. Better than what? "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." What exactly was promised anyway? According to the author, "God planned something better for us (the Hebrews) so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Great. It took hundreds of years and immeasurable death, pain, and suffering, but God's had a plan that's coming together perfectly right now, as in 2,000 years ago. Maybe.
We are now in chapter twelve. I managed to escape faith in god. What about you? The author continues on by claiming all the aforementioned characters as witnesses to god's plan. That should be enough, he says, to make the readers throw off whatever is holding them back and run the race with perseverance. The goal: Jesus, "the author and perfecter of our faith." He was so looking forward to the pleasure of perfecting their faith that he endured the shame and pain of the cross. What's six hours in trade for an eternity at the right hand of god? When the reader gets tired and loses heart, he can think about Jesus, who also endured opposition from sinful men. So waht if their pain lasts years instead of hours.
Now the Hebrews writer gets deadly serious. The readers haven't yet laid their blood on the line for Jesus. What's up with that? They've also forgotten Proverbs 3:11-12, which addresses them as sons (them as in the readers, or the Hebrews of all time?). It says, " My son, do not make light of the lord's discipline and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the lord disciplines those he loves." Oh, but the author of Hebrews does not stop there. He adds one more bit that isn't in the Psalm, as though it is actually part of it. "And he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." My study bible states that the word punish here means "to whip." This is corporal punishment, from god, and is evidence that the Hebrew writer made stuff up to influence his readers into believing that hardships endured were a direct proof of god's love for them. He is prepping them for martyrdom.
The author continues on in this vein, declaring that god is treating them as his sons by disciplining them, because aren't all sons disciplined. Obviously the Hebrew writer must have been, because, according to him, discipline makes you a true son, not an illegitimate one. (We all know illegitimate children never get disciplined). What?! The author says we respect our human fathers for disciplining us. Maybe he did, but it is clear that is not universal. Nevertheless, to the author, that is proof we should obey "the father of our spirits" even more "and live!" (The implication being that we won't get eternal life if we don't.) Supposedly, just like our fathers, god disciplines us because he thinks it is for our own good. (I think a father's harsh discipline is usually for the father's own good.) We think discipline is painful when it is happening, but the author wants us to see the long term benefits. "It produces a harvest of righteousness and peace." For whom?
Verse twelve calls the readers weaklings with feeble arms and weak knees who need to walk on straight paths so they will be healed. This makes no sense in the surrounding context. However it appears to partly be a reference to Isaiah 35:3, which is part of an admonition to "be strong, do not fear; your god will come...with vengeance, with divine retribution...to save you." Now that makes more sense. Why didn't the author quote the whole passage? Maybe he didn't want to give them false hope. Instead he combined a small bit of it with another small bit from Proverbs 4:26 and made nonsense. Till next time.
Till next time
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Hebrews part four
We are at Hebrews 2:5. Now the author quotes Psalm 8:4-6, "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." He goes on to equate Jesus with the "son of man" who was made lower than the angels. (Is it possible for god's exact representation, Hebrews 1:3, to be lower than the angels?) Every thing is subject to Jesus, but the author did not see everything subject to him, yet. This is the first time the name of Jesus is mentioned. He doesn't seem to have quite the stature of the Son of god mentioned earlier. Are they the same person?
The author goes on to say Jesus is crowned with glory and honor, BECAUSE he suffered death. Did he not have glory and honor before he died? We are then told that by the grace of god Jesus tasted death for everyone. Ah grace, that undefinable something that is supposed to be good. This time it is responsible for a senseless death. Jesus tasted death for us, but we still must die. What good was that?
Well, according to verse ten, it brought many sons to glory. What happened to the daughters? Did they get any of the glory? What is glory exactly?
So, according to Hebrews 2:10, god made the author of salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering. Was he not perfect beforehand? Hmm. Next, we are told "Both the one who makes men holy (Jesus) and those who are made holy (other people?) are members of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." The proof of this is supposedly found in a quote from Psalm 22:22, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."
Psalm 22 is supposed to be a Psalm of David. The whole Psalm is often claimed to be a prophecy about the christ. However, the Psalm author wrote it in the first person and appears to have been addressing god. The Hebrew author is suggesting that the Psalm is the words of the christ, written at least a few hundred years before Jesus was ever born. (Again, does he believe Jesus is the reincarnation of David?)Therefore, by some weird magic, the brothers mentioned in the Psalm can't be "the descendants of Jacob" mentioned later in the Psalm? They must be those people Jesus is making holy. And who are those people? I'm not sure that has been made clear yet.
In verse 13, the Hebrews author quotes a phrase that starts at the end of Isaiah 8:17 and goes into the beginning of Isaiah 8:18. "I will put my trust in him. Here am I, and the children god has given me." The context is god speaking to and through Isaiah about the Israelites, from whom god is hiding his face. After the words that Isaiah says were from god, he gives his own statement of loyalty to god. That's what the first sentence of the Hebrew quote is. The children in the second sentence of the quote are Isaiahs own flesh and blood children, as can be seen in the beginning of Isaiah chapter 8. However, strangely enough, the Hebrews author attributes those word to Jesus! How can that be? Is Jesus also a reincarnation of Isaiah?
It's almost like the author of Hebrews flipped through the old testament, stuck his finger in, and declared verses to be the words of Jesus. Either that or he deliberately searched for passages to fit his narrative. Surely that can't be it.
More to come.
The author goes on to say Jesus is crowned with glory and honor, BECAUSE he suffered death. Did he not have glory and honor before he died? We are then told that by the grace of god Jesus tasted death for everyone. Ah grace, that undefinable something that is supposed to be good. This time it is responsible for a senseless death. Jesus tasted death for us, but we still must die. What good was that?
Well, according to verse ten, it brought many sons to glory. What happened to the daughters? Did they get any of the glory? What is glory exactly?
So, according to Hebrews 2:10, god made the author of salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering. Was he not perfect beforehand? Hmm. Next, we are told "Both the one who makes men holy (Jesus) and those who are made holy (other people?) are members of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." The proof of this is supposedly found in a quote from Psalm 22:22, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."
Psalm 22 is supposed to be a Psalm of David. The whole Psalm is often claimed to be a prophecy about the christ. However, the Psalm author wrote it in the first person and appears to have been addressing god. The Hebrew author is suggesting that the Psalm is the words of the christ, written at least a few hundred years before Jesus was ever born. (Again, does he believe Jesus is the reincarnation of David?)Therefore, by some weird magic, the brothers mentioned in the Psalm can't be "the descendants of Jacob" mentioned later in the Psalm? They must be those people Jesus is making holy. And who are those people? I'm not sure that has been made clear yet.
In verse 13, the Hebrews author quotes a phrase that starts at the end of Isaiah 8:17 and goes into the beginning of Isaiah 8:18. "I will put my trust in him. Here am I, and the children god has given me." The context is god speaking to and through Isaiah about the Israelites, from whom god is hiding his face. After the words that Isaiah says were from god, he gives his own statement of loyalty to god. That's what the first sentence of the Hebrew quote is. The children in the second sentence of the quote are Isaiahs own flesh and blood children, as can be seen in the beginning of Isaiah chapter 8. However, strangely enough, the Hebrews author attributes those word to Jesus! How can that be? Is Jesus also a reincarnation of Isaiah?
It's almost like the author of Hebrews flipped through the old testament, stuck his finger in, and declared verses to be the words of Jesus. Either that or he deliberately searched for passages to fit his narrative. Surely that can't be it.
More to come.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Hebrews part three.
I'm back. Somehow life goes on, even when your heart has been smashed into a million pieces by the inconceivable and unexplainable.
We continue on in Hebrews chapter one at verse ten. There the author makes a quote that he attributes to god speaking about the christ. "In the beginning, o lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." First of all, this exact phrase does not seem to appear as is in the Old Testament. It appears to be a mash up of Psalm 8:6 and Zechariah 12:1. Second, the logic seems to be: if scripture is the word of god, and god is saying these things, and god appears to be talking to someone else. Who else could that someone be? Must be the christ!
Verse 11 contains a small piece of Isaiah 51:6, "they (the heavens) will wear out like a garment." Verse 12 is a reconstruction of Psalm 102:25-27, You will roll them (the heavens)up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed, but you remain the same, and your years will never end." Again, this is supposed to be the words of god speaking about the christ. I guess the writer couldn't admit to himself that the OT scriptures were not the words of god, but someone else talking about god.
Hebrews 1:10-12 is supposed to be a single quote from god, but what we find is words picked from multiple Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah. They are all sewed together to prove the author's point by seeming to be a cohesive unit. And who is going to know any better if they don't have access to scriptures?
In verse 13, the author tells us that god never told any angels to sit at his right hand until he makes their enemies into a foot stool, now did he? No, but he said that to someone in Psalm 110:1, which was supposed to have been written by David about someone called "the lord." Must be Jesus!! Hallelujah.
In verse 14, the author veers off course and says, "aren't angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" This must be so because, according to my study bible, Psalm 91 implies it and the story of Daniel in the lion's den proves it. That's logic.
That concludes chapter one. Chapter two continues on with the angel theme. The readers are told to pay careful attention to what they've heard (from whom?) and not drift away. The message spoken by angels is binding and disobedience results in punishment that we can't escape if we ignore the message of salvation. Nice. What choice do we have?
So....about this message of salvation. We are not yet told exactly what is was, or who it came through. Maybe the author will enlighten us later, or maybe he thinks we already know. It was apparently first announced by "the lord" and confirmed by those who had heard him, whoever they were. Apparently the author was not one who personally heard him. I'm assuming that "the lord" here refers to the christ, because the next sentence says that god also testified to it by distributing miraculous signs and gifts. Not any more.
We will pause here. Till next time.
We continue on in Hebrews chapter one at verse ten. There the author makes a quote that he attributes to god speaking about the christ. "In the beginning, o lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." First of all, this exact phrase does not seem to appear as is in the Old Testament. It appears to be a mash up of Psalm 8:6 and Zechariah 12:1. Second, the logic seems to be: if scripture is the word of god, and god is saying these things, and god appears to be talking to someone else. Who else could that someone be? Must be the christ!
Verse 11 contains a small piece of Isaiah 51:6, "they (the heavens) will wear out like a garment." Verse 12 is a reconstruction of Psalm 102:25-27, You will roll them (the heavens)up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed, but you remain the same, and your years will never end." Again, this is supposed to be the words of god speaking about the christ. I guess the writer couldn't admit to himself that the OT scriptures were not the words of god, but someone else talking about god.
Hebrews 1:10-12 is supposed to be a single quote from god, but what we find is words picked from multiple Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah. They are all sewed together to prove the author's point by seeming to be a cohesive unit. And who is going to know any better if they don't have access to scriptures?
In verse 13, the author tells us that god never told any angels to sit at his right hand until he makes their enemies into a foot stool, now did he? No, but he said that to someone in Psalm 110:1, which was supposed to have been written by David about someone called "the lord." Must be Jesus!! Hallelujah.
In verse 14, the author veers off course and says, "aren't angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" This must be so because, according to my study bible, Psalm 91 implies it and the story of Daniel in the lion's den proves it. That's logic.
That concludes chapter one. Chapter two continues on with the angel theme. The readers are told to pay careful attention to what they've heard (from whom?) and not drift away. The message spoken by angels is binding and disobedience results in punishment that we can't escape if we ignore the message of salvation. Nice. What choice do we have?
So....about this message of salvation. We are not yet told exactly what is was, or who it came through. Maybe the author will enlighten us later, or maybe he thinks we already know. It was apparently first announced by "the lord" and confirmed by those who had heard him, whoever they were. Apparently the author was not one who personally heard him. I'm assuming that "the lord" here refers to the christ, because the next sentence says that god also testified to it by distributing miraculous signs and gifts. Not any more.
We will pause here. Till next time.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Mark part twelve
I've been think about the feeding of the five thousand, and all the leftovers. Why didn't Jesus let the people keep the left over food? Wouldn't it have been kinder and more practical? What use did he have for twelve basketfuls of scraps? What did the disciples do with those twelve baskets of food, take them on the boat? Throw them away? The only reason I can think of for the twelve baskets is so that the story could be magnified to make it seem a spectacular miracle, and to include the magic number twelve. It may symbolically represent god's care for the needs of the twelve tribes. In reality, it could be that all the people present (not likely to have been 5,000) just shared the food they had brought with them. Jesus needn't have performed any miracle at all. In fact the text doesn't actually say that he did.
On to the end of Mark chapter six, where we are told that Jesus's fame spread so that people all over the region brought their sick to wherever he was. Everyone who touched him was healed. And yet, no person living at that time wrote about him.
In chapter seven, some Pharisees from Jerusalem see some of Jesus's disciples eating food without first ritually washing their hands, according to Jewish tradition. This was a symbolic cleansing of an abstract notion of "impurity" not a precursor of concrete germ theory as some modern christians may claim. This passage may have been written as a natural segue to Jesus being touched by so many people, many of whom were almost certainly ritually unclean. Those with certain illnesses, menstruating women, and even non Jews, were automatically unclean. The pharisees questioned Jesus as to why his followers were not living according to tradition.
Jesus replied to the pharisees with a quote from Isaiah 29:13, which accuses people of just paying god lip service and worshipping god with man made rules. This was meant to burn. Then Jesus mentions a command given by Moses (Ironically, if he ever existed, Moses was just a man.) that the pharisees do not observe. This command is to honor one's father and mother. Presumably part of that honoring would be to take financial care of them in their old age. Yet the Pharisees have allowed/encouraged people to give whatever money they would have used to support their parents to god. (Who doesn't need money. Where does the money go?) That is indeed a lousy thing to do. Much worse than not washing hands before eating.
Jesus used this as a teaching tool, and probably as an added embarrassment for the Pharisees. He told the crowd hanging around that "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." This can be taken symbolically or literally, as we shall see. In the literal sense, it clearly shows that Jesus had no knowledge of bacteria and viruses. Jesus implies that in the literal sense things come out of the body, like blood, pus, vomit, semen, urine, and feces, were unclean, not things that went into the body from the outside, like food and drink. However, there is also a metaphorical sense. To emphasize this, Jesus says food goes into a persons stomach and then out of his body. It doesn't go into his heart. (The author of Mark says this means Jesus declared all foods clean. That is clearly his personal interpretation.)
The disciples didn't get what Jesus was trying to say, so Jesus had to spell it out for them privately, after first calling them "dull." It's the heart that matters, according to Jesus. We are not talking about the actual organ of the heart, but that something we might call the soul, the conscience, our essence, the seat of our emotions, or some other abstract concept which denotes our personality or psyche. Jesus says," what comes out of a man makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils cone from inside and make a man unclean." Jesus is not talking about bodily fluids and literal uncleanness, but spiritual uncleanness. He's taking uncleanness to another level, a level which makes it even more difficult to know if one is "clean" or not.
On to the end of Mark chapter six, where we are told that Jesus's fame spread so that people all over the region brought their sick to wherever he was. Everyone who touched him was healed. And yet, no person living at that time wrote about him.
In chapter seven, some Pharisees from Jerusalem see some of Jesus's disciples eating food without first ritually washing their hands, according to Jewish tradition. This was a symbolic cleansing of an abstract notion of "impurity" not a precursor of concrete germ theory as some modern christians may claim. This passage may have been written as a natural segue to Jesus being touched by so many people, many of whom were almost certainly ritually unclean. Those with certain illnesses, menstruating women, and even non Jews, were automatically unclean. The pharisees questioned Jesus as to why his followers were not living according to tradition.
Jesus replied to the pharisees with a quote from Isaiah 29:13, which accuses people of just paying god lip service and worshipping god with man made rules. This was meant to burn. Then Jesus mentions a command given by Moses (Ironically, if he ever existed, Moses was just a man.) that the pharisees do not observe. This command is to honor one's father and mother. Presumably part of that honoring would be to take financial care of them in their old age. Yet the Pharisees have allowed/encouraged people to give whatever money they would have used to support their parents to god. (Who doesn't need money. Where does the money go?) That is indeed a lousy thing to do. Much worse than not washing hands before eating.
Jesus used this as a teaching tool, and probably as an added embarrassment for the Pharisees. He told the crowd hanging around that "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." This can be taken symbolically or literally, as we shall see. In the literal sense, it clearly shows that Jesus had no knowledge of bacteria and viruses. Jesus implies that in the literal sense things come out of the body, like blood, pus, vomit, semen, urine, and feces, were unclean, not things that went into the body from the outside, like food and drink. However, there is also a metaphorical sense. To emphasize this, Jesus says food goes into a persons stomach and then out of his body. It doesn't go into his heart. (The author of Mark says this means Jesus declared all foods clean. That is clearly his personal interpretation.)
The disciples didn't get what Jesus was trying to say, so Jesus had to spell it out for them privately, after first calling them "dull." It's the heart that matters, according to Jesus. We are not talking about the actual organ of the heart, but that something we might call the soul, the conscience, our essence, the seat of our emotions, or some other abstract concept which denotes our personality or psyche. Jesus says," what comes out of a man makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils cone from inside and make a man unclean." Jesus is not talking about bodily fluids and literal uncleanness, but spiritual uncleanness. He's taking uncleanness to another level, a level which makes it even more difficult to know if one is "clean" or not.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Heaven part five.
We are now looking at the plural of heaven--heavens. Skimming through the references in Strong's concordance, it seems clear that the Ancient Israelites believed in multiple heavens in layers above the earth. Deuteronomy 10:14 says, "To the lord your god belong the heavens, even the highest heavens.." 1 Kings 8:27 says, "the heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain" god. The same is said in 2 Chronicles. Nehemiah 6 says Yahweh made all the heavens, even the highest heavens.
In Psalm 2, the one enthroned in the heavens laughs at the kings of the earth. In Psalm 18, Yahweh parted the heavens and came down, on dark clouds, with smoke pouring from his nostrils and fire from his mouth. "He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." Hail, thunder, and lightening, announced his presence. Pretty cool imagery. In a few Psalms, god is said to be above the heavens. In 68:4, Yahweh rides on the clouds in the NIV, he rides in the heavens in the KJV. The word translated clouds and heavens here is a totally different word, arabah,that usually refers to a desert, which is wierd. In 68:33, the NIV says Yahweh rides the ancient skies above. The KJV says he rides upon the heaven of heavens. Again, the word translated skies and heavens is the same root word shameh.
There are multiple passages in Psalms where the heavens praise Yahweh. They rejoice and declare his righteousness and glory. Many passages in the Old Testament with the word heavens are redundant. God made the heavens. The heavens are high. They have clouds, dew, rain, stars, birds, etc. Yahweh's right hand spread out the heavens in Isaiah 48:13.
I have come to a very interesting passage in Isaiah 66. It speaks of new heavens and a new earth. There will be no crying there. Infants will not die and people 100 years old will be thought young. They will be blessed and Yahweh will never harm them. This is specifically for the Israelites but Christians tend to co-opt it.
Jeremiah 10:11 tells us that the gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under heaven, but not the god that made the heavens and the earth, Yahweh. (Sorry to break it to Yahweh, but his days are numbered as well.) When Yahweh thunders, the waters in the heavens roar, he brings the wind out from his storehouses.
In Ezekiel 1:1, the heavens opened and Ezekiel saw visions of god. After seeing a few surreal fantasy like creatures, at the end of chapter one Yahweh appears. He is sitting on a throne of sapphire. From the waist up he looks like glowing hot metal. From the waist down he was on fire. A brilliant light surrounded him and looked like a rainbow. In Joel and Haggai, the heavens are shook. In Zechariah 6, four spirits of heaven, who stand in the presence of the lord of the whole world, look like chariots with horses. They head out to the east, south, north, and west, of course.
That's it for heaven/heavens in the Old Testament. What have we learned? The word/words heaven in the Old Testament are almost exclusively the same root Hebrew word, shameh. That word is also translated as sky, air, and clouds in the NIV. Yahweh created the heavens/sky. He also lives there. (Where did he live before he created the heavens? ) At times he is said to be above the highest heaven or in the heaven of heavens. He's got a throne in the heavens and the earth is his footstool. From there he speaks, hurls lightening, sends hail, rain, dew, and winds which are stored there. Birds fly and clouds float in the heavens above. There are multitudes of spirit beings in heaven or the heavens which are often represented by the stars or are the stars, depending on which passage you read. One day there will be a new heavens and a new earth for the Israelites. I found nothing about people ever living an eternal life with god in heaven, if they believe in a messiah.
The New Testament is next.
In Psalm 2, the one enthroned in the heavens laughs at the kings of the earth. In Psalm 18, Yahweh parted the heavens and came down, on dark clouds, with smoke pouring from his nostrils and fire from his mouth. "He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." Hail, thunder, and lightening, announced his presence. Pretty cool imagery. In a few Psalms, god is said to be above the heavens. In 68:4, Yahweh rides on the clouds in the NIV, he rides in the heavens in the KJV. The word translated clouds and heavens here is a totally different word, arabah,that usually refers to a desert, which is wierd. In 68:33, the NIV says Yahweh rides the ancient skies above. The KJV says he rides upon the heaven of heavens. Again, the word translated skies and heavens is the same root word shameh.
There are multiple passages in Psalms where the heavens praise Yahweh. They rejoice and declare his righteousness and glory. Many passages in the Old Testament with the word heavens are redundant. God made the heavens. The heavens are high. They have clouds, dew, rain, stars, birds, etc. Yahweh's right hand spread out the heavens in Isaiah 48:13.
I have come to a very interesting passage in Isaiah 66. It speaks of new heavens and a new earth. There will be no crying there. Infants will not die and people 100 years old will be thought young. They will be blessed and Yahweh will never harm them. This is specifically for the Israelites but Christians tend to co-opt it.
Jeremiah 10:11 tells us that the gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under heaven, but not the god that made the heavens and the earth, Yahweh. (Sorry to break it to Yahweh, but his days are numbered as well.) When Yahweh thunders, the waters in the heavens roar, he brings the wind out from his storehouses.
In Ezekiel 1:1, the heavens opened and Ezekiel saw visions of god. After seeing a few surreal fantasy like creatures, at the end of chapter one Yahweh appears. He is sitting on a throne of sapphire. From the waist up he looks like glowing hot metal. From the waist down he was on fire. A brilliant light surrounded him and looked like a rainbow. In Joel and Haggai, the heavens are shook. In Zechariah 6, four spirits of heaven, who stand in the presence of the lord of the whole world, look like chariots with horses. They head out to the east, south, north, and west, of course.
That's it for heaven/heavens in the Old Testament. What have we learned? The word/words heaven in the Old Testament are almost exclusively the same root Hebrew word, shameh. That word is also translated as sky, air, and clouds in the NIV. Yahweh created the heavens/sky. He also lives there. (Where did he live before he created the heavens? ) At times he is said to be above the highest heaven or in the heaven of heavens. He's got a throne in the heavens and the earth is his footstool. From there he speaks, hurls lightening, sends hail, rain, dew, and winds which are stored there. Birds fly and clouds float in the heavens above. There are multitudes of spirit beings in heaven or the heavens which are often represented by the stars or are the stars, depending on which passage you read. One day there will be a new heavens and a new earth for the Israelites. I found nothing about people ever living an eternal life with god in heaven, if they believe in a messiah.
The New Testament is next.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Heaven part three
We have been scanning the scriptures for information about heaven. I used Strong's concordance to find all the instances the word heaven is used. A lot of what I have found is redundant, so, I skim through looking for the unique passages that have bits about heaven that we haven't covered yet. We left off in Psalms.
Proverbs 30:4 asks, "Who has gone up to heaven, who has come down?" This was written at a time when it was inconceivable to be able to leave the earth. It was also unknown that we live in solar system that inhabits a galaxy that is just one of billions of galaxies in a universe of which we have found no boundary. Airplanes have flown up into the atmosphere and found no gods. The astronauts went up above the atmosphere and found no gods. Space probes have gone out into the solar system and found no gods. Space telescopes have plumbed the depths of the universe and found no gods.
Ecclesiastes 5:2 says,"...god is in heaven and you are on earth." Song of Songs does not mention heaven. In Isaiah 13, Yahweh is mustering an army that comes "from faraway lands, from the ends of the heavens...to destroy the whole country." On that day "the stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light."
In Isaiah 14:12, the king of Babylon is told, "How you have fallen from heaven, o morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of god; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will make myself like the most high." It is interesting to note that this passage has been associated with Satan in a round about way. The morning star mentioned is actually the planet Venus. In Latin, and hence in the Latin translation of the Old Testament, it was rendered as "lucifer", a lower case noun, not a proper name. In context, that is obviously not a reference a reference to Satan. It is also important to note that in many cultures kings were considered divine, gods in the flesh. More about this later.
In Isaiah 34, we read a rant against the nations. Yahweh is angry with them all and will take out his wrath on them. Verse 4 says, "All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine...his sword has drunk its fill in the heavens." Isaiah 37:16 says that Yahweh is enthroned between cherubim. Isaiah 63:15 tells Yahweh to look down from his lofty throne in heaven. In Isaiah 66:1, Yahweh says, "Heaven is my throne, earth is my footstool."
In Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah speaks at the temple gate and says Yahweh is upset because the Israelites make cakes of bread for the "queen of heaven" and pour out drink offerings to other gods. In 8:2, Yahweh says the bones of Jerusalem's dead will be "removed from their graves. They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshipped." In 23:24, no one can hide from god because he fills heaven and earth. In chapter 44, Jeremiah received word from god about Jews living in various parts of Egypt. They are doomed for worshipping other gods, including the aforementioned Queen of Heaven. The people said it had been done for many generations by their forefathers, kings, and officials back in Jerusalem. They did not intend to stop.
It is clear from these passages that the Jews were not monotheists. Along with Yahweh worship, they also worshipped a female goddess and "the starry hosts" or "the hosts of heaven" which were heavenly bodies thought to be deities. This is called astrolatry. They believed the heavens or heaven to be filled with heavenly beings.
Proverbs 30:4 asks, "Who has gone up to heaven, who has come down?" This was written at a time when it was inconceivable to be able to leave the earth. It was also unknown that we live in solar system that inhabits a galaxy that is just one of billions of galaxies in a universe of which we have found no boundary. Airplanes have flown up into the atmosphere and found no gods. The astronauts went up above the atmosphere and found no gods. Space probes have gone out into the solar system and found no gods. Space telescopes have plumbed the depths of the universe and found no gods.
Ecclesiastes 5:2 says,"...god is in heaven and you are on earth." Song of Songs does not mention heaven. In Isaiah 13, Yahweh is mustering an army that comes "from faraway lands, from the ends of the heavens...to destroy the whole country." On that day "the stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light."
In Isaiah 14:12, the king of Babylon is told, "How you have fallen from heaven, o morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of god; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will make myself like the most high." It is interesting to note that this passage has been associated with Satan in a round about way. The morning star mentioned is actually the planet Venus. In Latin, and hence in the Latin translation of the Old Testament, it was rendered as "lucifer", a lower case noun, not a proper name. In context, that is obviously not a reference a reference to Satan. It is also important to note that in many cultures kings were considered divine, gods in the flesh. More about this later.
In Isaiah 34, we read a rant against the nations. Yahweh is angry with them all and will take out his wrath on them. Verse 4 says, "All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine...his sword has drunk its fill in the heavens." Isaiah 37:16 says that Yahweh is enthroned between cherubim. Isaiah 63:15 tells Yahweh to look down from his lofty throne in heaven. In Isaiah 66:1, Yahweh says, "Heaven is my throne, earth is my footstool."
In Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah speaks at the temple gate and says Yahweh is upset because the Israelites make cakes of bread for the "queen of heaven" and pour out drink offerings to other gods. In 8:2, Yahweh says the bones of Jerusalem's dead will be "removed from their graves. They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshipped." In 23:24, no one can hide from god because he fills heaven and earth. In chapter 44, Jeremiah received word from god about Jews living in various parts of Egypt. They are doomed for worshipping other gods, including the aforementioned Queen of Heaven. The people said it had been done for many generations by their forefathers, kings, and officials back in Jerusalem. They did not intend to stop.
It is clear from these passages that the Jews were not monotheists. Along with Yahweh worship, they also worshipped a female goddess and "the starry hosts" or "the hosts of heaven" which were heavenly bodies thought to be deities. This is called astrolatry. They believed the heavens or heaven to be filled with heavenly beings.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
High Priest Joshua, part 4
We continue in Zechariah 6. Zechariah is still with the angel in his vision. Now he sees four chariots with four different color horses, coming from between two mountains of bronze. These horses are sent in the four cardinal directions throughout the earth.
Next, the word of the lord came to Zechariah, telling him to take silver and gold from some of the exiles, make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua. Then, Zechariah is to say, "Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the lord. It is he who will build the temple of the lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two." So here the high priest Joshua is called the branch. The author of Zechariah seems to be saying saying that Joshua is the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Branch, found in Isaiah 4 and Ezekiel 17. Jeremiah 23 and 33 also mention a righteous branch. After this, the crown is to be given back to the exiles, but kept in the temple as a memorial. This is to remind them the temple will be built if they obey the lord.
Since it is clear from this passage that Joshua was the Branch. It seems quite plausible that he could have become a larger than life mythological figure or symbol in Judaism, or among some Jews, representing a man of righteousness and favor with god. After the destruction of the second temple, in the days of Rome, wouldn't the Jews be looking for a second Joshua/Branch to rebuild the temple and be anointed as high priest by Yahweh? It's a compelling thought.
In chapter 7 of Zechariah, we start with a short paragraph written in third person, possibly inserted later. It is now supposed to be the 4th year of Darius, ninth month, 4th day. People of Bethel came to ask the lord a question, through the priests. They wanted to know if they should continue to mourn and fast in the fifth month as they had done for years.
Next, in verse 4, we have first person passage where god asks Zechariah to ask all the people and priests if they had really been fasting for yahweh, or even feasting for yahweh, over the last seventy years. Hadn't the prophets of old asked the same thing when the Jerusalem and the surrounding area were at peace? The appearance of the number seventy usually has some prophetic significance.
In verse 8, we switch back to third person. Verses 8-10 appear to be inserted in the text. They disrupt the continuity of the passage. If they were left out the rest of chapter eight would make more sense, continuing in the vein of what happened when the prophets of old warned the people but they did not listen. Then the lord scattered them among the nations. It's about the past. However, verses 8-10 seem to be trying to connect it with Zechariah's time. It is slightly confusing.
Moving on to chapter 8, we are back in first person. Yahweh tells Zechariah he will return to Jerusalem to live. Once again there will be peace and prosperity. Yahweh will save his people from the east and the west and the will come back to live in Jerusalem. Everyone hearing those words needed to be strong to rebuild the temple. The lord was not going to treat the remnant of his people as he did in the past. (That didn't work out so well, did it?) Crops would grow, rain would fall, and the remnant's inheritance would flourish. Judah and Israel would be a blessing. Yahweh brought disaster upon their ancestors when they angered him, but now he is determined to do good again to Jerusalem. These are the things Yahweh required of them: to speak the truth, be just, and treat their neighbors right.
So, to answer the question from verse four, the mourning fasts are to become festivals of joy. Many people from other lands will come and seek out Yahweh. They will beg to live in the land of the Jews.
More to come.
Next, the word of the lord came to Zechariah, telling him to take silver and gold from some of the exiles, make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua. Then, Zechariah is to say, "Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the lord. It is he who will build the temple of the lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two." So here the high priest Joshua is called the branch. The author of Zechariah seems to be saying saying that Joshua is the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Branch, found in Isaiah 4 and Ezekiel 17. Jeremiah 23 and 33 also mention a righteous branch. After this, the crown is to be given back to the exiles, but kept in the temple as a memorial. This is to remind them the temple will be built if they obey the lord.
Since it is clear from this passage that Joshua was the Branch. It seems quite plausible that he could have become a larger than life mythological figure or symbol in Judaism, or among some Jews, representing a man of righteousness and favor with god. After the destruction of the second temple, in the days of Rome, wouldn't the Jews be looking for a second Joshua/Branch to rebuild the temple and be anointed as high priest by Yahweh? It's a compelling thought.
In chapter 7 of Zechariah, we start with a short paragraph written in third person, possibly inserted later. It is now supposed to be the 4th year of Darius, ninth month, 4th day. People of Bethel came to ask the lord a question, through the priests. They wanted to know if they should continue to mourn and fast in the fifth month as they had done for years.
Next, in verse 4, we have first person passage where god asks Zechariah to ask all the people and priests if they had really been fasting for yahweh, or even feasting for yahweh, over the last seventy years. Hadn't the prophets of old asked the same thing when the Jerusalem and the surrounding area were at peace? The appearance of the number seventy usually has some prophetic significance.
In verse 8, we switch back to third person. Verses 8-10 appear to be inserted in the text. They disrupt the continuity of the passage. If they were left out the rest of chapter eight would make more sense, continuing in the vein of what happened when the prophets of old warned the people but they did not listen. Then the lord scattered them among the nations. It's about the past. However, verses 8-10 seem to be trying to connect it with Zechariah's time. It is slightly confusing.
Moving on to chapter 8, we are back in first person. Yahweh tells Zechariah he will return to Jerusalem to live. Once again there will be peace and prosperity. Yahweh will save his people from the east and the west and the will come back to live in Jerusalem. Everyone hearing those words needed to be strong to rebuild the temple. The lord was not going to treat the remnant of his people as he did in the past. (That didn't work out so well, did it?) Crops would grow, rain would fall, and the remnant's inheritance would flourish. Judah and Israel would be a blessing. Yahweh brought disaster upon their ancestors when they angered him, but now he is determined to do good again to Jerusalem. These are the things Yahweh required of them: to speak the truth, be just, and treat their neighbors right.
So, to answer the question from verse four, the mourning fasts are to become festivals of joy. Many people from other lands will come and seek out Yahweh. They will beg to live in the land of the Jews.
More to come.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part nine
Continuing on with the "do nots" in Matthew's version of the sermon:
Matt. 7:1-5, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged..." Seems pretty clear. The passage continues on to talk metaphorically about how hypocritical it is to judge when you also have issues. "First take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
This passage is repeated in Luke's version sermon (Luke 6:37-42) but with modifications and additions. After saying do not judge, Jesus goes on to say "Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This actually sounds quite lovely, a kind of divine karma, the root of the prosperity gospel. Too bad it doesn't always work. Very often, people don't get good for good. I don't think that means we shouldn't do good and give to those in need. We just shouldn't expect to reap a windfall from our charitable deeds. Be good for goodness sake. Collective goodness makes the world a more pleasant place.
Matt. 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (This is not found in Luke) What in the world does Jesus mean here? My study bible commentary says that it is connected to the "do not judge" because you can judge whether a person is a "dog" or not by their character. You just can't be hypocritical about it. Personally, I think Jesus's "brother" in the judge not passage is a fellow Jew. In my opinion, dogs and pigs are metaphorically representative of Samaritans and gentiles. Later, in Chapter 15, Matthew recounts a story of a Canaanite woman who asked Jesus for help. He basically called her a dog, but he ended up helping her because he liked her sassy reply. Actually, this "do not" passage, with the dogs and pigs, does not seem to fit the rest of the sermon's theme and style.
Matt. 7:7-12, there are no more "do nots." Now Jesus tells his disciples to "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Wow! That's quite a promise. And it doesn't appear to come with any caveats. In fact Jesus goes on to say that god will give good gifts to those who ask him. That is the reason given for doing to others what you would have them do unto you. God does it, so should you. Again, prosperity gospel preaching. No conditions given.
This passage is repeated in Luke 11:9-13. (Not in the sermon) However, it is at the end of a parable about a man who needs something from a friend but the friend is in bed and his door is locked. The man is bold and persistent and gets what he needs. This is shown to be a metaphor for how a person should ask god for things. It makes a lot more sense in Luke's context.
Matt. 7:13-14, gives us the wide gate and broad road to destruction, and a small gate for the narrow road that leads to life. Only a few will find it. This comes after telling us how generous god is. Apparently he is not generous enough to keep all of humanity from destruction. In Luke 13:24, Jesus speaks of a narrow door into the house of salvation. There is also an interesting passage in Isaiah 35:8-10 that talks of a "highway of holiness." Maybe Matthew got the idea from that.
Matt. 7:1-5, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged..." Seems pretty clear. The passage continues on to talk metaphorically about how hypocritical it is to judge when you also have issues. "First take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
This passage is repeated in Luke's version sermon (Luke 6:37-42) but with modifications and additions. After saying do not judge, Jesus goes on to say "Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This actually sounds quite lovely, a kind of divine karma, the root of the prosperity gospel. Too bad it doesn't always work. Very often, people don't get good for good. I don't think that means we shouldn't do good and give to those in need. We just shouldn't expect to reap a windfall from our charitable deeds. Be good for goodness sake. Collective goodness makes the world a more pleasant place.
Matt. 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (This is not found in Luke) What in the world does Jesus mean here? My study bible commentary says that it is connected to the "do not judge" because you can judge whether a person is a "dog" or not by their character. You just can't be hypocritical about it. Personally, I think Jesus's "brother" in the judge not passage is a fellow Jew. In my opinion, dogs and pigs are metaphorically representative of Samaritans and gentiles. Later, in Chapter 15, Matthew recounts a story of a Canaanite woman who asked Jesus for help. He basically called her a dog, but he ended up helping her because he liked her sassy reply. Actually, this "do not" passage, with the dogs and pigs, does not seem to fit the rest of the sermon's theme and style.
Matt. 7:7-12, there are no more "do nots." Now Jesus tells his disciples to "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Wow! That's quite a promise. And it doesn't appear to come with any caveats. In fact Jesus goes on to say that god will give good gifts to those who ask him. That is the reason given for doing to others what you would have them do unto you. God does it, so should you. Again, prosperity gospel preaching. No conditions given.
This passage is repeated in Luke 11:9-13. (Not in the sermon) However, it is at the end of a parable about a man who needs something from a friend but the friend is in bed and his door is locked. The man is bold and persistent and gets what he needs. This is shown to be a metaphor for how a person should ask god for things. It makes a lot more sense in Luke's context.
Matt. 7:13-14, gives us the wide gate and broad road to destruction, and a small gate for the narrow road that leads to life. Only a few will find it. This comes after telling us how generous god is. Apparently he is not generous enough to keep all of humanity from destruction. In Luke 13:24, Jesus speaks of a narrow door into the house of salvation. There is also an interesting passage in Isaiah 35:8-10 that talks of a "highway of holiness." Maybe Matthew got the idea from that.
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Hell part 4
Now that we have covered hell in the Old Testament, we will look at the New Testament. Strong's concordance has 9 instances of the word Hell occurring in the book of Matthew. All but two of them are from the Greek word Gehenna which refers to a currently unknown valley outside Jerusalm where children were supposedly sacrificed to gods by fire. It may also have been a burning trash dump. The exact location appears to be a modern mystery, but the name lives on as a kind of metaphor for eternal destruction or punishment after death. Gehenna is in Jewish literature, as well as in the Christian Bible. Gehenna as hell also occurs three times in Mark, once in Luke, and once in James.
Lets look at what the New Testament KJV and NIV say about gehenna/hell in these verses:
*Matt 5:22- Both versions say that anyone who calls his brother a fool will be in danger of the fires of hell.
*Matt 5:29-30 Both versions say it is better to lose your eye or your right hand (after cutting it off to keep from sinning) than to have your whole body cast into hell.
*Matt 10:28-Tells us to fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
*Matt 18:9-Repeats the sentiment of Matthew 5 and tells us again that it would be better to lose body parts (eyes) rather than sin and get our whole body thrown into the fire of hell.
*Matt 23:15-Asks the scribes and pharisees if they can escape the damnation (divine judgement or sentence) of hell.
*Mark 9:43-47 Again, it's better to have body parts cut off (hands, feet, and eyes) than to be cast into hell with the fire that never goes out (NIV) or that can never be quenched (KJV). Some versions include multiple iterations of "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." This is a phrase from Isaiah 66:24. That not all versions repeat the saying is a sign that it is not repeated in the oldest manuscripts. Worm here means a gnawing worm that preys upon dead bodies.
Here is the whole passage from Isaiah 66:22-24, which is the very end of the book of Isaiah and is in the context of what appears to be an end times prophesy to the Israelites. "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the lord, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one new moon to another and from one sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the lord. "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to mankind."
Remember, this was written to Israelites, not Christians. They are told their descendants will be able to look at the dead bodies of Yahweh's enemies being burnt and eaten by worms forever. This the passage that Mark is referring to when he speaks of Hell, though Isaiah does not name it hell/gehenna. So, is this passage literal or metaphorical? If it is metaphorical, what is the reality behind the metaphor? Notice that people are not suffering eternal torment, their dead bodies are just being subject to eternal grossness which I assume gives some kind of satisfaction to the people who get to live on the new earth because they didn't rebel against Yahweh.
More verses:
*Luke 12:5-Says to fear the one who has the power (KJV) or authority (NIV) to cast or throw you into hell.
*James 3:6- "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."
There you have it. Gehenna/hell has a fire that can not be extinguished, dead bodies of those who rebel against god, immortal worms eating the dead bodies. The dead bodies were cast into hell by someone with power and authority and hell destroys both body and soul and tongues. However, gehenna is not the only hell in the New Testament.
More to come.
Lets look at what the New Testament KJV and NIV say about gehenna/hell in these verses:
*Matt 5:22- Both versions say that anyone who calls his brother a fool will be in danger of the fires of hell.
*Matt 5:29-30 Both versions say it is better to lose your eye or your right hand (after cutting it off to keep from sinning) than to have your whole body cast into hell.
*Matt 10:28-Tells us to fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
*Matt 18:9-Repeats the sentiment of Matthew 5 and tells us again that it would be better to lose body parts (eyes) rather than sin and get our whole body thrown into the fire of hell.
*Matt 23:15-Asks the scribes and pharisees if they can escape the damnation (divine judgement or sentence) of hell.
*Mark 9:43-47 Again, it's better to have body parts cut off (hands, feet, and eyes) than to be cast into hell with the fire that never goes out (NIV) or that can never be quenched (KJV). Some versions include multiple iterations of "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." This is a phrase from Isaiah 66:24. That not all versions repeat the saying is a sign that it is not repeated in the oldest manuscripts. Worm here means a gnawing worm that preys upon dead bodies.
Here is the whole passage from Isaiah 66:22-24, which is the very end of the book of Isaiah and is in the context of what appears to be an end times prophesy to the Israelites. "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the lord, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one new moon to another and from one sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the lord. "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to mankind."
Remember, this was written to Israelites, not Christians. They are told their descendants will be able to look at the dead bodies of Yahweh's enemies being burnt and eaten by worms forever. This the passage that Mark is referring to when he speaks of Hell, though Isaiah does not name it hell/gehenna. So, is this passage literal or metaphorical? If it is metaphorical, what is the reality behind the metaphor? Notice that people are not suffering eternal torment, their dead bodies are just being subject to eternal grossness which I assume gives some kind of satisfaction to the people who get to live on the new earth because they didn't rebel against Yahweh.
More verses:
*Luke 12:5-Says to fear the one who has the power (KJV) or authority (NIV) to cast or throw you into hell.
*James 3:6- "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."
There you have it. Gehenna/hell has a fire that can not be extinguished, dead bodies of those who rebel against god, immortal worms eating the dead bodies. The dead bodies were cast into hell by someone with power and authority and hell destroys both body and soul and tongues. However, gehenna is not the only hell in the New Testament.
More to come.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Isaiah chapters7-9, part 3
Today we finish up the Christmas posts with Isaiah chapter 9.
After chapter 8 ended with a dark curse for those who do not speak according to god's word, verse 9:1 says its not the end of the world. "In the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the shadow of death a light has dawned." Matthew 4:13-16 claims this was a prophecy that was fulfilled when Jesus lived and preached in Galilee. However, there are no contemporary extrabiblical sources that place Jesus in that place at that time. The (unknown) author of Matthew could very well have written his story with an eye to choosing vague prophetic sounding passages that could do double duty.
The passage goes on to talk of the gentile nation (In the Galilee region) being enlarged and increasing their joy. The yoke of oppression will be lifted and war time clothing burnt. According to my study bible this did happen, kind of. Around 701 BCE, the Assyrian army lost its hold on the region. If the author of Isaiah was deliberately projecting his writing into the future, as though he was writing from the past, he would have known that. But what does that have to do with Jesus? Why do some verses of Isaiah apply to Jesus and others do not? Shouldn't real prophecy be internally consistent? The easy answer is that the authors of the New Testament gospels picked and chose the ones that would help enforce the story they wanted to tell.
Verses 6-7 says that this improvement in the region will happen... "for to us a child is born, to us a son is given..." Okay, who is US here? Ahaz and his young woman, or Isaiah and his prophetess? And what son? Immanuel or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz? Or is it talking about Jesus as Christians claim? Could it have two meanings?
More about this child from verses 6-7: "and the government will be on his shoulders." Did that happen to Jesus? Nope. "And he will be called Wonderful Counselor." Did that happen to Jesus?
Not anywhere in the New Testament. Christians do call him that now, BECAUSE of this passage. He will also supposedly be called "Mighty God." Was Jesus ever called that? Not in the Bible. "Everlasting," nope. "Father," nope. "Prince of Peace," nope. If he was ever called any of these things outside of the bible, it was usually because someone had read this passage and assumed it was talking of Jesus.
Verse 7 says "of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end." Did that happen? First of all Jesus never had a government, unless you count the government of the Catholic church and the Vatican. I hope you don't. It certainly has not had a reign of peace. "He will reign on David's throne." Did that happen to Jesus? No. However, the gospels tried to get around that by claiming Jesus had direct lineage from David, and christians say that he "reigns" with god in heaven on the "true throne of David." It's all metaphorical don't you know. At least the parts christians find convenient to be metaphorical. The virgin birth, that's literal.
Continuing on in verse 7, the son will establish and uphold David's kingdom "with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever." Did that happen? Uh, no. In fact it didn't happen to the Jewish nation after Assyria left either, they were eventually conquered by the Babylonians. There was no justice and righteousness forever, and no peace without end. This section ends by saying "the zeal of the lord almighty will accomplish this." What happened? The prophecy failed, no matter who it was about.
We will not finish chapter 9 because it is blatantly obvious that it can not be applied to Jesus in any way. But I urge you to continue reading to the end. It's got a lot of interesting stuff about the wrath of god against Israel and false prophets. (I think we can assume the author of Isaiah does not consider himself one. )There is even a mention of cannibalism at the end of the chapter.
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate and Warm Wishes to all my readers. Until next week.
After chapter 8 ended with a dark curse for those who do not speak according to god's word, verse 9:1 says its not the end of the world. "In the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the shadow of death a light has dawned." Matthew 4:13-16 claims this was a prophecy that was fulfilled when Jesus lived and preached in Galilee. However, there are no contemporary extrabiblical sources that place Jesus in that place at that time. The (unknown) author of Matthew could very well have written his story with an eye to choosing vague prophetic sounding passages that could do double duty.
The passage goes on to talk of the gentile nation (In the Galilee region) being enlarged and increasing their joy. The yoke of oppression will be lifted and war time clothing burnt. According to my study bible this did happen, kind of. Around 701 BCE, the Assyrian army lost its hold on the region. If the author of Isaiah was deliberately projecting his writing into the future, as though he was writing from the past, he would have known that. But what does that have to do with Jesus? Why do some verses of Isaiah apply to Jesus and others do not? Shouldn't real prophecy be internally consistent? The easy answer is that the authors of the New Testament gospels picked and chose the ones that would help enforce the story they wanted to tell.
Verses 6-7 says that this improvement in the region will happen... "for to us a child is born, to us a son is given..." Okay, who is US here? Ahaz and his young woman, or Isaiah and his prophetess? And what son? Immanuel or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz? Or is it talking about Jesus as Christians claim? Could it have two meanings?
More about this child from verses 6-7: "and the government will be on his shoulders." Did that happen to Jesus? Nope. "And he will be called Wonderful Counselor." Did that happen to Jesus?
Not anywhere in the New Testament. Christians do call him that now, BECAUSE of this passage. He will also supposedly be called "Mighty God." Was Jesus ever called that? Not in the Bible. "Everlasting," nope. "Father," nope. "Prince of Peace," nope. If he was ever called any of these things outside of the bible, it was usually because someone had read this passage and assumed it was talking of Jesus.
Verse 7 says "of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end." Did that happen? First of all Jesus never had a government, unless you count the government of the Catholic church and the Vatican. I hope you don't. It certainly has not had a reign of peace. "He will reign on David's throne." Did that happen to Jesus? No. However, the gospels tried to get around that by claiming Jesus had direct lineage from David, and christians say that he "reigns" with god in heaven on the "true throne of David." It's all metaphorical don't you know. At least the parts christians find convenient to be metaphorical. The virgin birth, that's literal.
Continuing on in verse 7, the son will establish and uphold David's kingdom "with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever." Did that happen? Uh, no. In fact it didn't happen to the Jewish nation after Assyria left either, they were eventually conquered by the Babylonians. There was no justice and righteousness forever, and no peace without end. This section ends by saying "the zeal of the lord almighty will accomplish this." What happened? The prophecy failed, no matter who it was about.
We will not finish chapter 9 because it is blatantly obvious that it can not be applied to Jesus in any way. But I urge you to continue reading to the end. It's got a lot of interesting stuff about the wrath of god against Israel and false prophets. (I think we can assume the author of Isaiah does not consider himself one. )There is even a mention of cannibalism at the end of the chapter.
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate and Warm Wishes to all my readers. Until next week.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Isaiah chapters 7-9, part 2
Now let us look at Isaiah chapter 8. God tells Isaiah to write on a scroll, with an ordinary pen, the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. This means "quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil." Then two priests are to be called in as witnesses.
After that, Isaiah went to the prophetess, presumably his wife, they had sex and she had a son. They named him the above wacky name because god told them to. God also told Isaiah that before the child could say mommy and daddy, the king of Assyria would plunder Damascus and Samaria, the locations of the kingdoms of Aram and Israel. So is this child the same child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14? It is unclear. Why would Isaiah's child be a sign to King Ahaz? That makes no sense to me.
Next is a long poetic passage talking about this invasion. The end of verse 8 is the phrase "O Immanuel" which you may have heard in christmas carols. This is the name that was supposed to be given to the child in Isaiah 7:14 It means "god is with us," a completely different name than the one Isaiah supposedly gave his newborn son. The phrase "god is with us," echoing the name, is also at the end of verse 10.
In verse 18, Isaiah says, "Here I am, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion." Well, whoop-dee-doo. A guy has some kids, which lots of guys all over the world do, and that means they are some kind of special portent of coming destruction? Why should anyone believe him? What difference would it have made if he hadn't had any kids?
Yes, Assyria invaded. But when was this written? Before, or after the fact? It is unknown, but most probably after. If it was written after the invasion, with Isaiah projecting his past self into the future, how are we to know whether or not he actually recieved any message from god beforehand? Nobody was fact checking him then, just as very few people bother to fact check religious figures today. Should we just believe anyone who says they predicted a particular thing would happen and it happened after they said it? Of course, not. This is what makes biblical prophecy so problematic. The likelihood of actual detailed prophetic statements before specific events is highly unlikely.
The chapter ends with a screed against those who would consult mediums and spiritists who talk to the dead. Isaiah says they should enquire of their god instead, meaning him, the supposed mouthpiece of god. Then he goes on to pronounce a fancy curse on those don't consult god (him).
And what does all this have to do with Jesus?
To be continued.
After that, Isaiah went to the prophetess, presumably his wife, they had sex and she had a son. They named him the above wacky name because god told them to. God also told Isaiah that before the child could say mommy and daddy, the king of Assyria would plunder Damascus and Samaria, the locations of the kingdoms of Aram and Israel. So is this child the same child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14? It is unclear. Why would Isaiah's child be a sign to King Ahaz? That makes no sense to me.
Next is a long poetic passage talking about this invasion. The end of verse 8 is the phrase "O Immanuel" which you may have heard in christmas carols. This is the name that was supposed to be given to the child in Isaiah 7:14 It means "god is with us," a completely different name than the one Isaiah supposedly gave his newborn son. The phrase "god is with us," echoing the name, is also at the end of verse 10.
In verse 18, Isaiah says, "Here I am, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion." Well, whoop-dee-doo. A guy has some kids, which lots of guys all over the world do, and that means they are some kind of special portent of coming destruction? Why should anyone believe him? What difference would it have made if he hadn't had any kids?
Yes, Assyria invaded. But when was this written? Before, or after the fact? It is unknown, but most probably after. If it was written after the invasion, with Isaiah projecting his past self into the future, how are we to know whether or not he actually recieved any message from god beforehand? Nobody was fact checking him then, just as very few people bother to fact check religious figures today. Should we just believe anyone who says they predicted a particular thing would happen and it happened after they said it? Of course, not. This is what makes biblical prophecy so problematic. The likelihood of actual detailed prophetic statements before specific events is highly unlikely.
The chapter ends with a screed against those who would consult mediums and spiritists who talk to the dead. Isaiah says they should enquire of their god instead, meaning him, the supposed mouthpiece of god. Then he goes on to pronounce a fancy curse on those don't consult god (him).
And what does all this have to do with Jesus?
To be continued.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Isaiah chapters 7-9, part 1
Before I continue on with my study of hell, I thought I would do my "Christmas" post. We will look at Isaiah 7-9 because parts of it are often brought out at Christmas, as a supposed prophesies of the birth of Jesus.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Hell part 3
As we have seen, the Old Testament hell is actually sheol, which is not the same as the hell taught in christianity. It is the realm of the dead, the grave. It is underground or some nebulous place in the depths, "down below." It is often associated with a pit. The word pit associated with the grave or death in the Old Testament often comes from the Hebrew word "bowr." This word appears to have meanings associated with a hole in the ground that is a well or cistern, or a dungeon. The word pit associated with death and the grave in the KJV is also sometimes translated from the Hebrew word "shachath." This word has connotations of a ditch or a trap. Notice that these are all words associated with under the ground or holes in the earth.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)