We are at Mark 10:10, still in the divorce passage. Back at the house, the disciples ask Jesus to clarify his position on divorce. He says, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." I just got this thought: what if all the in private explanations were not in the original story. What if they were added later by someone who wanted to provide more details to supplement anything Jesus said that was cryptic or unclear. There is no way to know but it would make sense. This part of the passage is used by christians to say that god is not only against divorce, but remarriage as well. According to my bible's commentary, the whole passage may have been a reference to the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias. Remember, John the baptist was beheaded for expressing his opinion on their divorce/remarriage situation.
Next, people are bringing children to Jesus to touch, presumably because they believed he had magic powers. The disciples tried to stop it, but Jesus told them to let the children come. Again, he says "the kingdom of god belongs to such as these....anyone who will not receive the kingdom of god like a little child will never enter it." He blessed them, which means he said magical words that have no power but probably sounded good.
As Jesus was travelling, a rich young man ran up to Jesus fell on his knees, called Jesus "good teacher", and asked how to inherit eternal life. Then Jesus told the man not to call him good because only god is good. This is fascinating. Isn't Jesus supposed to be god in the flesh? Is Jesus actually saying he himself was not good? Is he a separate being from god? If Jesus was not good, then he couldn't have been a perfect sacrifice, could he?
Jesus tells the young man he needs to keep the commandments. The young man already does that. Then Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor, then follow him (I'm guessing that meant literally follow him around like the disciples.) The young man was sad, he didn't want eternal life bad enough to give up his earthly security. Jesus astonished the disciples by telling them it was practically impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of god, which was probably against everything they had grown up believing. They wondered who could be saved if the rich couldn't. Jesus then tells them all things are possible with god.
Peter reminds Jesus that the disciples left everything to follow Jesus. (They have become itinerant religious beggars. What became of their families and their homes?)Jesus tells them that everyone who has left home and family for the gospel will receive a hundred times what they left, plus persecutions,(oh goody) "and in the age to come, eternal life." Their poor neglected families. Shame on Jesus. Funny thing, in the relatives-to-leave list, wives are not included. I guess that would be kind of odd since he just got through saying what God has joined, let not man separate. Didn't god also join families together? Why is Jesus separating them? But, someone says, it must be a figurative leaving, not literal. Oh, yeah? Read it again.
Jesus and the disciples are now on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus tells them, "The son of man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will hand him over to the gentiles who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later, he will rise." Jesus has a plan.
Next James and John, the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus a favor. They want to sit on his right and left hand in his glory. So, after being told multiple times that the least and last will be first and greatest, they are still jockeying for position. They want to be Jesus's top men. Jesus tells them they don't know what they are asking. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" He has just told them what will happen to "the son of man" maybe they don't understand that he was talking about himself. They think they can take on whatever comes his way.
Jesus tells them they will,(a prophecy?) but he can't give James and John the positions they want. Those spots have been prepared for others. Who?
Showing posts with label James. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Mark part fifteen
We are now at Mark 9:2. The text tells us that six days (Luke 9:28 says eight days) after Jesus predicted his own death, Jesus, Peter, James, and John, went up a high mountain, in an unspecified location. They were all alone. There were no other witnesses. Jesus was "transfigured" before the others. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than the whitest white. (Maybe Jesus put a lantern in his robe.) They also saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus. How did they know what Moses and Elijah looked like?
Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.
After the voice, Peter, James, and John, couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.
The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6, " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.
My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.
The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.
Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.
Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.
After the voice, Peter, James, and John, couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.
The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6, " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.
My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.
The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.
Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Mark part nine
We are at Mark 5:35. Jesus had been on his way to heal Jairus's daughter but got sidetracked by the woman who had supposedly been bleeding for twelve years. Now someone runs up and tells Jairus his daughter is dead. Jesus tells him to not be afraid, just believe. Only Peter, James and John were allowed to accompany Jesus to Jairus's home. When they got there, the mourners were in full cry. Jesus told them they needn't make so much noise, the child was only sleeping. They laughed at him.
Jesus took only the father, mother, and his three disciples, into the child's room. He grabbed the child by the hand and told her to get up, and she did. Then "he gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this." Which was probably the best way to get the news spread. On the other hand, it's an excuse, when someone says they never heard this story from Jairus, or anyone else. Then a christian could say, of course not, jesus swore him to secrecy. My study bible claims it is because Jesus didn't want to "precipitate a crisis" before his ministry was complete. That is assumed. It is not actually in the text.
By the way, just like the woman in the previous story bled for twelve years, this little girl was twelve years old. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't. Twelve is one of the Bible's magic numbers.
We are now in chapter six. Jesus goes to his hometown with his disciples. He teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath, amazing his neighbors with his wisdom and miracles. Jesus is a carpenter. He worked with his hands, which would most likely mean he had no formal religious training. The people knew his mother Mary, his sisters, and his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. His father is not mentioned. It seems that Jesus came from a large family.
Let's talk about Jesus's family. It may have no significance, but I find the names of his family members interesting. If you look at the original text, his mother has the same basic name as Moses's sister, Miriam. His brother James is actually Jacob, the name of the founding father of Israel. This is thought to be the James mentioned in Paul's letters and the one that wrote the book of James. His brother Joseph has the name of one of Jacob's sons, as does Judas (Judah) and Simon (Simeon). Jesus himself is actually named Joshua, the name of the man who led the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan, also the name of a mystical high priest in the book of Zechariah. Another coincidence? Maybe. One thing the bible is good at is reusing names, or using names with specific meanings to the context. It may also just reflect the cultural popularity of those names.
Anyway, the text says Jesus's neighbors were offended by him. To which Jesus makes that famous statement, "Only in his hometown...is a prophet without honor." We are told Jesus was not able to work many miracles there, just heal a few sick people, because of the people's lack of faith. (He's got a built in holy spirit meter.) Can you blame them? What would you think if the local plumber in your town, whom you had known since he was a child, suddenly stopped working and became an itinerant preacher and faith healer? Do you realize that since he is no longer being productive, he must get his food/lodging/clothing from somewhere? That's where you come in. People are expected to physically support "men of god." Nice work if you can get it. Jesus couldn't get it there. You would think he wasn't god in the flesh, or something.
Another interesting thing, even though we are studying Mark as a stand alone book: In the book of Luke, and only the book of Luke, at the age of twelve (there is that number again), Jesus was amazing people in the temple with his wisdom. Yet, in Mark's story, we see no sign that Jesus ever gave his neighbors previous reason to believe he was special.
More to come.
Jesus took only the father, mother, and his three disciples, into the child's room. He grabbed the child by the hand and told her to get up, and she did. Then "he gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this." Which was probably the best way to get the news spread. On the other hand, it's an excuse, when someone says they never heard this story from Jairus, or anyone else. Then a christian could say, of course not, jesus swore him to secrecy. My study bible claims it is because Jesus didn't want to "precipitate a crisis" before his ministry was complete. That is assumed. It is not actually in the text.
By the way, just like the woman in the previous story bled for twelve years, this little girl was twelve years old. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't. Twelve is one of the Bible's magic numbers.
We are now in chapter six. Jesus goes to his hometown with his disciples. He teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath, amazing his neighbors with his wisdom and miracles. Jesus is a carpenter. He worked with his hands, which would most likely mean he had no formal religious training. The people knew his mother Mary, his sisters, and his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. His father is not mentioned. It seems that Jesus came from a large family.
Let's talk about Jesus's family. It may have no significance, but I find the names of his family members interesting. If you look at the original text, his mother has the same basic name as Moses's sister, Miriam. His brother James is actually Jacob, the name of the founding father of Israel. This is thought to be the James mentioned in Paul's letters and the one that wrote the book of James. His brother Joseph has the name of one of Jacob's sons, as does Judas (Judah) and Simon (Simeon). Jesus himself is actually named Joshua, the name of the man who led the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan, also the name of a mystical high priest in the book of Zechariah. Another coincidence? Maybe. One thing the bible is good at is reusing names, or using names with specific meanings to the context. It may also just reflect the cultural popularity of those names.
Anyway, the text says Jesus's neighbors were offended by him. To which Jesus makes that famous statement, "Only in his hometown...is a prophet without honor." We are told Jesus was not able to work many miracles there, just heal a few sick people, because of the people's lack of faith. (He's got a built in holy spirit meter.) Can you blame them? What would you think if the local plumber in your town, whom you had known since he was a child, suddenly stopped working and became an itinerant preacher and faith healer? Do you realize that since he is no longer being productive, he must get his food/lodging/clothing from somewhere? That's where you come in. People are expected to physically support "men of god." Nice work if you can get it. Jesus couldn't get it there. You would think he wasn't god in the flesh, or something.
Another interesting thing, even though we are studying Mark as a stand alone book: In the book of Luke, and only the book of Luke, at the age of twelve (there is that number again), Jesus was amazing people in the temple with his wisdom. Yet, in Mark's story, we see no sign that Jesus ever gave his neighbors previous reason to believe he was special.
More to come.
Friday, January 4, 2019
The apostles part five and wrap up.
11)* Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus: Matthew 10:3
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
The apostles part four
8)*Matthew: Matthew 9:9, Matthew 10:3, Mark3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The apostles part two
3)*James the son of Zebedee: Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19, 29, Mark 3:17, Mark 10:35, Luke 5:10,
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Mark part five
If we look more closely at the list of the twelve apostles mentioned in Mark chapter three, we see that Levi the tax collector is not mentioned. However, in Matthew 10:3, we are told that Matthew was the tax collector. Are Levi and Matthew the same person as is traditionally said? Let's look at each gospel account.
Mark chapter two says Levi is the "son of Alphaeus" and a tax collector. He follows Jesus. Jesus eats with him. The name Levi is no where else in Mark. In chapter three, Matthew is named as one of the twelve, but Mark does not say Matthew was a tax collector. Matthew is nowhere else in the book of Mark. Oddly enough, The author calls another one of the twelve "James the son of Alphaeus." Were James and Levi brothers? There is no mention of Alphaeus again in the book of Mark.
Matthew chapter 10 mentions Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Matthew does not mention the name Levi at all in the whole book. He tells the same story of the tax collector, in chapter 9, but uses the name Matthew instead. The author of Matthew does not call the tax collector the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is not mentioned any more in the rest of the book of Matthew, neither is Alphaeus. You would think that if the book of Matthew was actually written by Matthew, he would have injected himself into the story more.
Luke speaks of Levi the tax collector in chapter five. He is not called the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is mentioned as one of the twelve in chapter six, but is not called a tax collector. James the son of Alphaeus is listed as one of the twelve. Alphaeus is not mentioned again in Luke, neither is Levi or Matthew.
Acts chapter one also names the twelve apostles. It does not mention the name Levi. It names Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus. There is no other mention of Matthew or Alphaeus in Acts. There are no other instances of Levi the tax collector, Matthew, or Alphaeus in the whole rest of the New Testament. Paul does not mention any of them either.
Now let's look at another of the twelve mentioned in Mark 3, Thaddaeus. In the KJV, Matthew 10 says his name was Lebbaeus with the last name of Thaddaeus. The NIV and other translations only say Thaddaeus. Neither Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus are mentioned elsewhere in the bible. Luke 6 lists a "Judas SON of James" in the NIV instead of Thaddaeus, and so does Acts chapter one. The KJV calls this person in Luke and Acts "Judas the BROTHER of James." The Greek actually looks like "Judas of James." It seems that Judas's relationship to James is actually unclear. Most commentaries tend to assume that all these names, Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, and Judas were the same person.
A Judas is also mentioned in Matthew 13:55 as one of the brothers of Jesus. Some people think this Judas is the same person as above and the author of the book of Jude. Though that seems problematic to me, considering Judas and Thaddaeus are supposed to be the same person and Thaddaeus is mentioned in Matthew 10.
A Judas is mentioned once more in John 14:22. This Judas asks Jesus why he will reveal himself to just the apostles and not the whole world. This Judas is also assumed to be the apostle. Paul does not mention any Judas.
Are we confused yet?
Mark chapter two says Levi is the "son of Alphaeus" and a tax collector. He follows Jesus. Jesus eats with him. The name Levi is no where else in Mark. In chapter three, Matthew is named as one of the twelve, but Mark does not say Matthew was a tax collector. Matthew is nowhere else in the book of Mark. Oddly enough, The author calls another one of the twelve "James the son of Alphaeus." Were James and Levi brothers? There is no mention of Alphaeus again in the book of Mark.
Matthew chapter 10 mentions Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Matthew does not mention the name Levi at all in the whole book. He tells the same story of the tax collector, in chapter 9, but uses the name Matthew instead. The author of Matthew does not call the tax collector the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is not mentioned any more in the rest of the book of Matthew, neither is Alphaeus. You would think that if the book of Matthew was actually written by Matthew, he would have injected himself into the story more.
Luke speaks of Levi the tax collector in chapter five. He is not called the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is mentioned as one of the twelve in chapter six, but is not called a tax collector. James the son of Alphaeus is listed as one of the twelve. Alphaeus is not mentioned again in Luke, neither is Levi or Matthew.
Acts chapter one also names the twelve apostles. It does not mention the name Levi. It names Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus. There is no other mention of Matthew or Alphaeus in Acts. There are no other instances of Levi the tax collector, Matthew, or Alphaeus in the whole rest of the New Testament. Paul does not mention any of them either.
Now let's look at another of the twelve mentioned in Mark 3, Thaddaeus. In the KJV, Matthew 10 says his name was Lebbaeus with the last name of Thaddaeus. The NIV and other translations only say Thaddaeus. Neither Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus are mentioned elsewhere in the bible. Luke 6 lists a "Judas SON of James" in the NIV instead of Thaddaeus, and so does Acts chapter one. The KJV calls this person in Luke and Acts "Judas the BROTHER of James." The Greek actually looks like "Judas of James." It seems that Judas's relationship to James is actually unclear. Most commentaries tend to assume that all these names, Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, and Judas were the same person.
A Judas is also mentioned in Matthew 13:55 as one of the brothers of Jesus. Some people think this Judas is the same person as above and the author of the book of Jude. Though that seems problematic to me, considering Judas and Thaddaeus are supposed to be the same person and Thaddaeus is mentioned in Matthew 10.
A Judas is mentioned once more in John 14:22. This Judas asks Jesus why he will reveal himself to just the apostles and not the whole world. This Judas is also assumed to be the apostle. Paul does not mention any Judas.
Are we confused yet?
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Mark part three
We are still in chapter one at verse 35. In this book, we don't know how long after Jesus was baptized that he started preaching, or how old he was, but it was after John was put in prison. The last few events have been depicted as happening in rapid succession. The appearance in the synagogue, the healings at Simon's house, and now we are told that "early in the morning, while it was still dark" Jesus got up, left the house, and went out to pray alone. His other companions went to find him because everyone was looking for him. He wanted to leave that place and travel around to teach and drive out demons.
In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.
Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims? Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend, or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.
Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man" This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?
In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.
More to come.
In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.
Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims? Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend, or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.
Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man" This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?
In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.
More to come.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Mark part two
We are in Mark chapter one, at verse twelve. Jesus has just been baptized by John the baptist who was said to have been in a desert area. The spirit, which has descended on Jesus sends him "out into the desert," which must have been nearby. Jesus stayed in the desert forty days (magical number) being tempted by Satan. Mark says he was with wild animals and angels attended him. This story is much shorter than the similar event recorded in other gospels. It includes very few details. Notice that no one else was with him as a witness. So, if this was Jesus's claim, everyone who heard it would have had to take his word that he was telling the truth. Can you think of any reason why he would lie?
From there, the text jumps to John the baptist being in prison, after which Jesus went into Galilee telling people to repent because the kingdom of god was near, they were to believe the good news (aka gospel). Do you see that? Jesus didn't start preaching till AFTER John was out of the way. John could not publicly contradict Jesus's claims if he wanted to. Also, the "good news" here was the approaching kingdom of god. It feels like there are so many different gospels in the new testament.
When Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a lake) he recruited Simon (later called Peter) and his brother Andrew by telling the two fishermen that he would make them "fishers of men." How punny. Naturally, they dropped everything and followed him. In this same way, he also recruited James and John, who were just about to go out to fish in their father's boat. Now there are four disciples. Disciple just means student.
They all went to Capernaum. On the Sabbath (Saturday), Jesus taught in the synagogue. This is not anything special. I'm pretty sure any male Jew was allowed to get up and say something in turn. However, the text claims that what Jesus said impressed everyone, but it does not record his words on the occasion. While he was speaking, a man possessed by an evil spirit starts yelling at Jesus. He accuses Jesus of coming to destroy them and says he knows who Jesus is..."the holy one of god." (What if it was actually just some guy yelling, "Hey, I know who he is." Then the story got stretched. It could have happened that way.) Jesus commands the spirit to be quiet and come out of the man, which it does with a shriek. Good cinema. In fact, if this actually happened, who's to say Jesus didn't plant the man in the audience. That kind of thing happens today.
The people were sogullible amazed that they began gossiping about this guy who taught like he knew what he was talking about and could exorcise demons. Naturally the news spread quickly. The five of them then went to the home of Simon and Andrew, where Jesus got rid of Peter's mother-in-law's fever. Then she began to wait on them, 'cause that's what women were expected to do after recovering from a fever and they needed someone to wait on them. Jesus did all this stuff on the Sabbath. The mother-in-law also waited on the men on the Sabbath. Was it just men who were not supposed to work on the Sabbath? Or was waiting on men not considered work?
After sunset, when it was no longer the Sabbath, people began to bring all their sick and demon possessed to Jesus to be healed. He apparently healed a lot of people with "various diseases" and exorcised many demons. (I wonder if had the same success rate modern faith healers have.) However, he didn't let any of the demons speak "because they knew who he was." Ha. That's kind of funny if you think about it. People who knew who Jesus was were not allowed to speak and were said to have demons. Hmm. There is definitely more than one way to look at that.
More to come.
From there, the text jumps to John the baptist being in prison, after which Jesus went into Galilee telling people to repent because the kingdom of god was near, they were to believe the good news (aka gospel). Do you see that? Jesus didn't start preaching till AFTER John was out of the way. John could not publicly contradict Jesus's claims if he wanted to. Also, the "good news" here was the approaching kingdom of god. It feels like there are so many different gospels in the new testament.
When Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a lake) he recruited Simon (later called Peter) and his brother Andrew by telling the two fishermen that he would make them "fishers of men." How punny. Naturally, they dropped everything and followed him. In this same way, he also recruited James and John, who were just about to go out to fish in their father's boat. Now there are four disciples. Disciple just means student.
They all went to Capernaum. On the Sabbath (Saturday), Jesus taught in the synagogue. This is not anything special. I'm pretty sure any male Jew was allowed to get up and say something in turn. However, the text claims that what Jesus said impressed everyone, but it does not record his words on the occasion. While he was speaking, a man possessed by an evil spirit starts yelling at Jesus. He accuses Jesus of coming to destroy them and says he knows who Jesus is..."the holy one of god." (What if it was actually just some guy yelling, "Hey, I know who he is." Then the story got stretched. It could have happened that way.) Jesus commands the spirit to be quiet and come out of the man, which it does with a shriek. Good cinema. In fact, if this actually happened, who's to say Jesus didn't plant the man in the audience. That kind of thing happens today.
The people were so
After sunset, when it was no longer the Sabbath, people began to bring all their sick and demon possessed to Jesus to be healed. He apparently healed a lot of people with "various diseases" and exorcised many demons. (I wonder if had the same success rate modern faith healers have.) However, he didn't let any of the demons speak "because they knew who he was." Ha. That's kind of funny if you think about it. People who knew who Jesus was were not allowed to speak and were said to have demons. Hmm. There is definitely more than one way to look at that.
More to come.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Jude, Introduction
I've decided our next bible study will be on the epistle of Jude, a nice short book. It's also fairly interesting.
Who wrote Jude? The book starts with "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James." Nobody actually knows who this Jude is and what he means by saying he is a brother of James. Is that a literal brother or a figurative brother? Also, is this one of the biblical James or some other James? My study bible speculates that it could be either 1.) the apostle "Judas son of James" in Luke 6:16. That would not be the Judas that was a traitor. 2.) or Judas the brother of Jesus and James, mentioned in Matthew 13:55. I don't think either one is feasible, because of the likely dates of authorship. However, the author may be intending that impression.
My personal speculation: Jude is a form of the Hebrew name Judah. Judah was one of the twelve sons of Israel (Jacob). The tribe of Judah gave its name to the identity of the Jews. I believe it is possible the author is identifying himself as a Jew. Throughout the Old and New Testament, names and their meanings often do double duty. They send a message to the reader. As I said when I went through the book of James, this also may have been what the author of James was intending to convey with his name, which is the Hebrew Jacob, the original name of Israel the patriarch of the Jews. One reason to think this is that there is no specific individual or congregational recipient of the letter. The letter is openly addressed to "those who have been called, who are loved by god the father and kept by Jesus Christ."
When was Jude written? The simple answer is nobody knows. It is speculated to have been written sometime before 96 CE, when it is supposedly quoted in the letter attributed to Clement of Rome. I have been having a hard time finding that quote. We may come across it later. I find the letter attributed to Clement to be quite problematic anyway. The next earliest dates that Jude was quoted or mentioned are from the mid second century. The earliest existing fragments and manuscripts are from the 3rd/4th centuries. (Link and link) That would be from 100 to 200 years after it was originally written. There are no originals.
The book has been disputed because it quotes non canonical writings by "uninspired" authors. In fact both Jesus and Paul have been attributed as saying things that are quotes of extra-biblical works. It is important to remember that the canon of accepted works, both Old and New Testament, was determined by mere mortals with human criteria. If Jude was a Jew, I would not find it surprising that he quote popular Jewish authors. I will find it unusual if Jude says his letter is the literal word of god or is inspired by the holy spirit. I'd bet anything that the author had no idea his letter would end up in "the bible." There now appears to have been dozens of christian letters, and writings of various kinds, floating around that never made the cut.
One thing to consider is the possibility that Jude was a real letter of an early christian and that he actually represented teachings of the early church, whereas other writings that have been deemed more authentic might not be. Maybe the canonical winners were just those books that fit the current theology/ideology of the 3rd/4th century church leadership in power. Maybe their theology was not the original theology of the original christian sect, but one that had evolved to become mainstream. This is something I also considered with the book of James. We will keep that in mind as we go through the book.
More to come.
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.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Galatians chapter 2 part 2
*Starting in verse 11 we learn that Peter had been in Antioch with Paul, had been eating with the Gentiles, and had been living like a gentile. In Acts, Peter is not said to have ever been to Antioch, indeed never very far from Jerusalem. In Acts 10, we find a story of Peter experiencing a vision from God which makes it clear that "God accepts men from every nation" including their eating habits. Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and explains his vision to the apostles and other believers. The "circumcised believers" drop all objections to accepting Gentiles. They praise God, saying "So, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) That sounds like the gentile question is settled, right? This supposedly takes place before Paul and Barnabus go to
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Paul's early life and mission in his letters.
*Today we will look at the claims Paul makes about his early life in the letters (epistles) in the Bible that are attributed to him. Some of the letters are considered by some experts to be forgeries, but we won't get into that now.
-Almost every letter begins with Paul claiming to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, appointed by God.
-Roman 15:17-21, Paul claims he is obeying God by preaching to the Gentiles, and that his ambition is always to preach where christ was not known, so he is not building on someone else's foundation. That also is convenient, because he won't have knowledgable people contradicting him or calling him a liar. He can indoctrinate them into his own way of thinking before anyone else gets to them. The ignorant are easier to sway. Remember, in Galations chapter 1 Paul pronounced a curse on anyone who teaches a different gospel. That's one way to ensure that the superstitious remain faithful.
-1 Corinthians 9:1-2, Paul claims he has seen Jesus the lord. Plus, he may not be an apostle to others, but he is an apostle to the Corinthians. He says they are the seal of his apostleship. This leads me to wonder if others were claiming Paul was not an apostle. When Paul says he has seen Jesus, it was not in the flesh but must have been in a vision if some kind. Are visions trustworthy?
-1 Corinthians 15:5-11, Paul names those who saw Jesus after his resurrection. He says Peter was first, then the twelve, then five hundred believers, then James (this James must not have been one of the twelve), then to all the apostles (??? That's strange. Aren't the apostles supposed to be the same as the twelve disciples?). Last of all, Jesus appeared to Paul, obviously in a vision. Paul says he is the least of the apostles and doesn't even deserve to be one because he persecuted the church, confirming what he said in Galatians 1:13. Nevertheless, Paul claims to have worked harder than all the other apostles preaching Jesus's death burial and resurrection.
-2 Corinthians 11:22-23, Paul says he is a Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, and a servant of the messiah, just like others who claim to be apostles. Plus, he's worked harder and been through more hardships than any other apostle.
-2 Corinthians 12, Paul claims to know a guy, obviously himself, who was caught up to the third heaven, or paradise. He's not sure whether it was an out of body experience or not. While there, he heard inexpressible things, some things which he is not permitted to tell. Fascinating. Also, so he wouldn't be conceited about this marvelous privilege, Paul was given a "thorn in the flesh" to torment him. This thorn in the flesh is not described by Paul, though there has been plenty of extra-biblical speculation. Paul also claims to be just as much an apostle as any other by virtue of signs, wonders and miracles he has performed.
-Philippians 3:5-10, Paul says he is a circumcised Hebrew, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, he is legalistically faultless, and once was a persecutor of the church. But none of that means anything to him compared to the righteousness found through faith in the messiah, which he hopes will somehow help him attain resurrection from the dead.
*If some of that seems rather vague, I can't help it. That's as much as I could find in Paul's letters. He does not mention the events on the road to Damascus, found in the book of Acts, which I will discuss in the next post. Details about his conversion are conspicuously lacking. Also, there is no mention of his birthplace, supposedly Tarsus, or his Roman citizenship, or a divinely appointed name change. At no time in his letters. does he say his name was once Saul. Also, his mission appears to be to teach about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, not about Jesus's actual life, miracles, or teachings.
-Almost every letter begins with Paul claiming to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, appointed by God.
-Roman 15:17-21, Paul claims he is obeying God by preaching to the Gentiles, and that his ambition is always to preach where christ was not known, so he is not building on someone else's foundation. That also is convenient, because he won't have knowledgable people contradicting him or calling him a liar. He can indoctrinate them into his own way of thinking before anyone else gets to them. The ignorant are easier to sway. Remember, in Galations chapter 1 Paul pronounced a curse on anyone who teaches a different gospel. That's one way to ensure that the superstitious remain faithful.
-1 Corinthians 9:1-2, Paul claims he has seen Jesus the lord. Plus, he may not be an apostle to others, but he is an apostle to the Corinthians. He says they are the seal of his apostleship. This leads me to wonder if others were claiming Paul was not an apostle. When Paul says he has seen Jesus, it was not in the flesh but must have been in a vision if some kind. Are visions trustworthy?
-1 Corinthians 15:5-11, Paul names those who saw Jesus after his resurrection. He says Peter was first, then the twelve, then five hundred believers, then James (this James must not have been one of the twelve), then to all the apostles (??? That's strange. Aren't the apostles supposed to be the same as the twelve disciples?). Last of all, Jesus appeared to Paul, obviously in a vision. Paul says he is the least of the apostles and doesn't even deserve to be one because he persecuted the church, confirming what he said in Galatians 1:13. Nevertheless, Paul claims to have worked harder than all the other apostles preaching Jesus's death burial and resurrection.
-2 Corinthians 11:22-23, Paul says he is a Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, and a servant of the messiah, just like others who claim to be apostles. Plus, he's worked harder and been through more hardships than any other apostle.
-2 Corinthians 12, Paul claims to know a guy, obviously himself, who was caught up to the third heaven, or paradise. He's not sure whether it was an out of body experience or not. While there, he heard inexpressible things, some things which he is not permitted to tell. Fascinating. Also, so he wouldn't be conceited about this marvelous privilege, Paul was given a "thorn in the flesh" to torment him. This thorn in the flesh is not described by Paul, though there has been plenty of extra-biblical speculation. Paul also claims to be just as much an apostle as any other by virtue of signs, wonders and miracles he has performed.
-Philippians 3:5-10, Paul says he is a circumcised Hebrew, an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee, he is legalistically faultless, and once was a persecutor of the church. But none of that means anything to him compared to the righteousness found through faith in the messiah, which he hopes will somehow help him attain resurrection from the dead.
*If some of that seems rather vague, I can't help it. That's as much as I could find in Paul's letters. He does not mention the events on the road to Damascus, found in the book of Acts, which I will discuss in the next post. Details about his conversion are conspicuously lacking. Also, there is no mention of his birthplace, supposedly Tarsus, or his Roman citizenship, or a divinely appointed name change. At no time in his letters. does he say his name was once Saul. Also, his mission appears to be to teach about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, not about Jesus's actual life, miracles, or teachings.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Galatians chapter 1 part 3
*Verses 11 and 12: Paul wants the Galatians to know that the gospel he preached to them was not something a man made up or something he got from some other man. Oh, no, he got it by revelation from Jesus Christ himself! Jesus, if he existed, should have been quite dead. Think of what that means. Paul heard a voice that no one else heard with a message that no one else recieved. Paul believed it came from the messiah named Jesus. Paul is asking, and expects, his readers to believe this solely on his word, without evidence. Personally, I side with Thomas Paine who pointed out that a revelation to one man is not necessarily a revelation to all. Why should we believe Paul?
*Verses 13-17: Paul tells the readers about his former life. He intensely persecuted those of the church or assembly of God and tried to destroy it. Were these christian churches? This would have been within 10 years of Jesus's death, if he actually lived and died as reported in the first 4 books of the New Testament, which were written decades after this book. Or were they just Jewish meet up groups that followed the teachings of a particular rabbi? There are no christian writings preserved from those early days before Paul. Paul believed he was specially appointed by God to preach to the Gentiles (non jews) about the revelation he recieved about god's son. He emphasizes that he didn't consult anyone else, especially any of the apostles in Jerusalem, after he recieved his revelation, but went straight to Arabia, then later returned to Damascus. The apostles in Jerusalem would have been much more knowledgable about Jesus and his teachings, but Paul seems to think it is important to show that he was not influenced by them. In the next couple of posts we will compare all the accounts of the event of Paul's special revelation.
* Verses 18-24: We are not told here how long Paul was in Arabia or what he did there. Three years after he returned to Damascus, he went to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. The only other apostle he saw was James, who he calls "the lord's brother." Was this James one of the original twelve disciples or an actual sibling of Jesus? No one can say for sure. After meeting with Peter and James, Paul went to Syria and Cilicia. For some reason Paul thinks it is important to stress how few people in Judea had ever met him. All they knew about him was he was once persecuting them, now he was preaching the faith.
*Verses 13-17: Paul tells the readers about his former life. He intensely persecuted those of the church or assembly of God and tried to destroy it. Were these christian churches? This would have been within 10 years of Jesus's death, if he actually lived and died as reported in the first 4 books of the New Testament, which were written decades after this book. Or were they just Jewish meet up groups that followed the teachings of a particular rabbi? There are no christian writings preserved from those early days before Paul. Paul believed he was specially appointed by God to preach to the Gentiles (non jews) about the revelation he recieved about god's son. He emphasizes that he didn't consult anyone else, especially any of the apostles in Jerusalem, after he recieved his revelation, but went straight to Arabia, then later returned to Damascus. The apostles in Jerusalem would have been much more knowledgable about Jesus and his teachings, but Paul seems to think it is important to show that he was not influenced by them. In the next couple of posts we will compare all the accounts of the event of Paul's special revelation.
* Verses 18-24: We are not told here how long Paul was in Arabia or what he did there. Three years after he returned to Damascus, he went to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. The only other apostle he saw was James, who he calls "the lord's brother." Was this James one of the original twelve disciples or an actual sibling of Jesus? No one can say for sure. After meeting with Peter and James, Paul went to Syria and Cilicia. For some reason Paul thinks it is important to stress how few people in Judea had ever met him. All they knew about him was he was once persecuting them, now he was preaching the faith.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
James- wrap up
*After reading the book of James, I've come to the personal conclusion that it is a book by a Jew, possibly of the Pharisee sect, for Jews, possibly those in jewish communities scattered around the world after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. The first verse clearly gives that impression. Succeeding verses are addressed to "brothers" referring back to that first mention of the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. Also, we have no idea who this James is, and it is not likely that he was one of the Jameses mentioned in the gospel accounts. Significantly, his name is actually Jacob, the name of the founder of the 12 Israelite tribes. James does not claim to be writing the words of God or to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
*There is nothing said in this book which would contradict a Jewish identity, except the two phrases mentioning the lord Jesus Christ, which easily could have been added. There is nothing in this book which would identify it as specifically christian, except those two phrases. There is no mention of Jesus as a person, his birth, life, ministry, words, death, or resurrection. There is no mention of any other New Testament characters. There is a mention of demons, but not Angels. There is a suggestion of eternal reward and punishment, but it is not specific. There is no hint of a trinitarian doctrine. There is a reference to the Jewish Shema that says the lord our God is one. There is a reference to meetings in a synagogue. There are multiple references to Old Testament people and scripture. There is no mention of a gospel or good news of salvation from sins, once and for all by a sacrifice of the life of a man/God. There is a reference about waiting for a messaiah. However, it does not indicate that the messiah has been here already and will return. The Jews of that day were waiting for a messiah. There is no reference to baptism. Sins are forgiven through prayer.
*In chapter 3 of the English NIV translation, the text mentions heaven, hell, and the devil. The phrase in greek translated "from heaven" is literally "from above." The phrase translated "of the devil" literally means "demonic," not referring to a specific being. It has the same root as the demons that shudder in James 2:19. The word hell is translated from gehenna.
*James's focus seemed to be on the Jews in the diaspora maintaining their faith and identity, and especially how they treated each other as a community. He stressed treating the poor among them with respect and dignity, in word and action. This was done by suggesting that the poor have an advantage over the wealthy in the virtue of faith. He stressed good deeds, self control of the tongue, and humility. He denigrated the desire for wealth. He vehemently denied that faith is enough to maintain a right standing with God.
*Next, I think I will tackle the book of Galatians as our introduction to Paul and his letters. We will probably compare and contrast the Paul in the epistles to the one in Acts. The epistles were most likely written before the gospels and the book of Acts. For now, I will leave you with an existential thought from James 4:14--"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while then vanishes."
*There is nothing said in this book which would contradict a Jewish identity, except the two phrases mentioning the lord Jesus Christ, which easily could have been added. There is nothing in this book which would identify it as specifically christian, except those two phrases. There is no mention of Jesus as a person, his birth, life, ministry, words, death, or resurrection. There is no mention of any other New Testament characters. There is a mention of demons, but not Angels. There is a suggestion of eternal reward and punishment, but it is not specific. There is no hint of a trinitarian doctrine. There is a reference to the Jewish Shema that says the lord our God is one. There is a reference to meetings in a synagogue. There are multiple references to Old Testament people and scripture. There is no mention of a gospel or good news of salvation from sins, once and for all by a sacrifice of the life of a man/God. There is a reference about waiting for a messaiah. However, it does not indicate that the messiah has been here already and will return. The Jews of that day were waiting for a messiah. There is no reference to baptism. Sins are forgiven through prayer.
*In chapter 3 of the English NIV translation, the text mentions heaven, hell, and the devil. The phrase in greek translated "from heaven" is literally "from above." The phrase translated "of the devil" literally means "demonic," not referring to a specific being. It has the same root as the demons that shudder in James 2:19. The word hell is translated from gehenna.
*James's focus seemed to be on the Jews in the diaspora maintaining their faith and identity, and especially how they treated each other as a community. He stressed treating the poor among them with respect and dignity, in word and action. This was done by suggesting that the poor have an advantage over the wealthy in the virtue of faith. He stressed good deeds, self control of the tongue, and humility. He denigrated the desire for wealth. He vehemently denied that faith is enough to maintain a right standing with God.
*Next, I think I will tackle the book of Galatians as our introduction to Paul and his letters. We will probably compare and contrast the Paul in the epistles to the one in Acts. The epistles were most likely written before the gospels and the book of Acts. For now, I will leave you with an existential thought from James 4:14--"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while then vanishes."
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
James chapter 5 part 2
*The rest of the chapter addresses prayer in times of trouble and sickness. James claims that prayer plus faith equals forgiveness of sins and physical healing. Here we see the ancient assumption that illness is associated with, or a result of, "sin." Illness was once considered a spiritual condition manifesting itself in physical symptoms. Some of this thinking persists today, in spite of advances in medical knowledge.
* James says a sick person should have the elders of the church pray over them and anoint them with oil. I don't know that the oil was any more effective than the prayer, depending on the physical cause of the illness. I guess it served the same purpose by making them feel like they were doing something to help. You might look at the word church here and say it is proof that this was a christian letter. However, the greek word is ecclesia which means "called out." It is a greek word for an assembly and did not originally refer to the christian church, though it eventually came to mean that. In fact, in Matthew 18:17, Jesus refers to "the church." Presuming Jesus actually said that, he was speaking to Jews about Jews. He would have been speaking about a Jewish assembly, perhaps in a synagogue. There was no christian church at the time.
*Elijah is given as an example of a righteous man who prayed and got exactly what he asked for. Notice that all the human examples and role models in this book are from the Old Testament. We have had Abraham, Rahab, Job, and now Elijah. There is no mention of the actions of Jesus or the disciples.
*Last of all, James encourages his fellow Jews in the diaspora to bring back anyone who has "wandered from the truth" in order to save them from death. Which truth? Judaism or Christianity?
* James says a sick person should have the elders of the church pray over them and anoint them with oil. I don't know that the oil was any more effective than the prayer, depending on the physical cause of the illness. I guess it served the same purpose by making them feel like they were doing something to help. You might look at the word church here and say it is proof that this was a christian letter. However, the greek word is ecclesia which means "called out." It is a greek word for an assembly and did not originally refer to the christian church, though it eventually came to mean that. In fact, in Matthew 18:17, Jesus refers to "the church." Presuming Jesus actually said that, he was speaking to Jews about Jews. He would have been speaking about a Jewish assembly, perhaps in a synagogue. There was no christian church at the time.
*Elijah is given as an example of a righteous man who prayed and got exactly what he asked for. Notice that all the human examples and role models in this book are from the Old Testament. We have had Abraham, Rahab, Job, and now Elijah. There is no mention of the actions of Jesus or the disciples.
*Last of all, James encourages his fellow Jews in the diaspora to bring back anyone who has "wandered from the truth" in order to save them from death. Which truth? Judaism or Christianity?
Saturday, November 12, 2016
James chapter 5 part 1
After reading chapter 5:
*Verses 1-6 are a warning to the rich. They will be sorry. Horrible things have happened to their wealth and possessions. The destruction will be a testimony against them, because they oppressed the poor and didn't pay the wages of those they hired. They lived in luxury and self indulgence. They condemned innocent people who were not opposing them. Sounds like Donald Trump. This passage says the cries of the oppressed have reached the ears of the lord. I'm guessing rich oppressors don't actually believe that or they wouldn't do what they do. Very rarely do they have to pay for the full extent of their crimes in this life, and never afterward. Job recognized that. Threats of eternal destruction slip off them like water off a duck's back. I'm not saying every rich person is an oppressor, but when the shoe fits...
*After the rant of the last few verses, James changes his tone. In fact, reading back over the text, the apocalyptic style rant seems out of place, and the continuity of the text would not be broken if it was removed. It would actually make more sense. Now James tells his fellow Jews to be patient until the lord's coming. Christians believe he is talking about the return of Jesus, but he very well could be talking about the Jewish expectation of the appearance of a messiah. James tells them to wait without grumbling against each other or judging each other. They are to take the example of the prophets' patience and Job's perserverence. Look what Job got after he persevered, everything that he had lost and more. That would certainly speak to displaced Jews.
*Verse 12 is another piece that feels out of place in the text. It is about taking oaths, swearing by heaven, earth, or anything else. They will be condemned if they do. This is one passage that gets ignored by many christians. Some, like the Quakers, have made a point of following it. One thing that makes this passage strange is that there was plenty of swearing in the Old Testament that was not condemned. Another thing is the phrase "above all." Surely James did not think this was the most important thing in his letter!"
*Verses 1-6 are a warning to the rich. They will be sorry. Horrible things have happened to their wealth and possessions. The destruction will be a testimony against them, because they oppressed the poor and didn't pay the wages of those they hired. They lived in luxury and self indulgence. They condemned innocent people who were not opposing them. Sounds like Donald Trump. This passage says the cries of the oppressed have reached the ears of the lord. I'm guessing rich oppressors don't actually believe that or they wouldn't do what they do. Very rarely do they have to pay for the full extent of their crimes in this life, and never afterward. Job recognized that. Threats of eternal destruction slip off them like water off a duck's back. I'm not saying every rich person is an oppressor, but when the shoe fits...
*After the rant of the last few verses, James changes his tone. In fact, reading back over the text, the apocalyptic style rant seems out of place, and the continuity of the text would not be broken if it was removed. It would actually make more sense. Now James tells his fellow Jews to be patient until the lord's coming. Christians believe he is talking about the return of Jesus, but he very well could be talking about the Jewish expectation of the appearance of a messiah. James tells them to wait without grumbling against each other or judging each other. They are to take the example of the prophets' patience and Job's perserverence. Look what Job got after he persevered, everything that he had lost and more. That would certainly speak to displaced Jews.
*Verse 12 is another piece that feels out of place in the text. It is about taking oaths, swearing by heaven, earth, or anything else. They will be condemned if they do. This is one passage that gets ignored by many christians. Some, like the Quakers, have made a point of following it. One thing that makes this passage strange is that there was plenty of swearing in the Old Testament that was not condemned. Another thing is the phrase "above all." Surely James did not think this was the most important thing in his letter!"
Thursday, November 10, 2016
James 4 part 2
*From verses 13 on, James addresses boasting about the future. He says that saying you are going to do certain things in the future without the caveat "if it is the lord's will" is boasting or bragging. On the surface it may sound kind of silly to have to repeat that phrase every single time you mention something you plan to do on a day that is not today. "Tomorrow we will do the laundry, if it is the lord's will." "Tomorrow I will clean toilets, if it is the lord's will." However, if James is addressing a known problem with this letter, I don't think it is everyday plans he is concerned about.
*In verse 13 he mentions people saying "we will go to this city or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." This is the kind of talk James finds offensive. Why? Because this is something a talented or well educated and wealthy, or a person who wants to be wealthy, might say. James has already told us the poor are special because of their richness of faith and the well off need to humbly recognize that. Openly speaking of personal plans to do things a poor person may never hope to do is boasting and bragging, which James thinks is evil. It certainly isn't considerate. Saying "if we live and it is the lord's will" softens the blow to the poor persons psyche. Of course, everything is god's will to the true believer, even the states of poverty and wealth. The richness of the poor person's faith may exceed that of the wealthy, but James thinks everyone needs to be reminded of god's will.
*The last verse says "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." This one passage has given centuries of christians reason to be afraid. There are millions of good things that could be done every day, but most people pick and choose. It is impossible to do all the good things that ought to be done. People have personal priorities and they know it. The conclusion: sins of omission are inescapable. So, christianity came up with the idea to pray for forgiveness for their sins of omission, then they are covered. Except some of them still feel guilty and torture themselves over it. But was James actually talking bout every single good thing that hasn't been done? Or was he talking about the preceding topic of saying "if it is the lord's will?" He also could be referring to what follows in chapter five, which addresses the way the rich treat the poor. There were no chapter and verse breaks in the manuscripts from which we get the book of James. Those are a much later addition.
*Just to be clear, for an atheist, there is no "will" that is deciding the life paths of individuals. People make decisions based on the cards life has dealt them. Sometimes life gives you a bad hand. Some people are much luckier than others. Poverty is not a virtue, neither is wealth. Different from a card game, the winner is not the one who had the best hand at the end of the game. That only passes his cards on to his heirs. The end of the game is the same for everyone, death. The wealthy have a human obligation to consider how to help those who have not been as lucky they have. It is right because it is a good thing to relieve human suffering, not because a god or the bible says so.
*In verse 13 he mentions people saying "we will go to this city or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." This is the kind of talk James finds offensive. Why? Because this is something a talented or well educated and wealthy, or a person who wants to be wealthy, might say. James has already told us the poor are special because of their richness of faith and the well off need to humbly recognize that. Openly speaking of personal plans to do things a poor person may never hope to do is boasting and bragging, which James thinks is evil. It certainly isn't considerate. Saying "if we live and it is the lord's will" softens the blow to the poor persons psyche. Of course, everything is god's will to the true believer, even the states of poverty and wealth. The richness of the poor person's faith may exceed that of the wealthy, but James thinks everyone needs to be reminded of god's will.
*The last verse says "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." This one passage has given centuries of christians reason to be afraid. There are millions of good things that could be done every day, but most people pick and choose. It is impossible to do all the good things that ought to be done. People have personal priorities and they know it. The conclusion: sins of omission are inescapable. So, christianity came up with the idea to pray for forgiveness for their sins of omission, then they are covered. Except some of them still feel guilty and torture themselves over it. But was James actually talking bout every single good thing that hasn't been done? Or was he talking about the preceding topic of saying "if it is the lord's will?" He also could be referring to what follows in chapter five, which addresses the way the rich treat the poor. There were no chapter and verse breaks in the manuscripts from which we get the book of James. Those are a much later addition.
*Just to be clear, for an atheist, there is no "will" that is deciding the life paths of individuals. People make decisions based on the cards life has dealt them. Sometimes life gives you a bad hand. Some people are much luckier than others. Poverty is not a virtue, neither is wealth. Different from a card game, the winner is not the one who had the best hand at the end of the game. That only passes his cards on to his heirs. The end of the game is the same for everyone, death. The wealthy have a human obligation to consider how to help those who have not been as lucky they have. It is right because it is a good thing to relieve human suffering, not because a god or the bible says so.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
James chapter 4 Part 1
After reading chapter 4:
*There must have been fights and quarrels happening among the Jews in the diaspora, because James feels the need to address them. He says they happen when people don't get what they want.but that is their own fault, says James. First, they didn't ask God. Second, if they did ask god, it was with the wrong motive-- personal pleasure. Isn't most of what we want for our personal pleasure? Maybe that's why the number of unanswered prayers far outnumbers the answered ones? Surely it can't mean there is no actual God who is listening with invisible and immaterial ears?
*Next James rebukes the readers for trying to be friends of the world (adulterous people, a term used for those unfaithful to the religion, adulteresses in the literal greek translation) which would make them an enemy of God. This echoes the sentiment in James 1:27 that they need to keep themselves from being polluted by the world.
*Verse 5 is strange. It says, "Or do you think scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?" (NIV) A foot note has two other possible wordings for that sentence. Plus, there doesn't appear to be an old or New Testament scripture that actually says that. In the different versions there doesn't appear to be a consensus as to who is doing the yearning, our spirit or God. If it is God, he is longing jealously for our spirit. If it is our spirit, it longs jealously but who knows for what.
*But it's all okay if the readers are humble and not proud. Then comes ten commands: 1. Submit to God. 2. Resist the devil. 4.Come near to God. 5. Wash your hands. 6. Purify your hearts 7. Grieve, mourn and wail. 8. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. (Cheerful lot, eh?) 9. Humble yourselves before the lord. 10. Do not slander a brother (fellow Jew).
*The last few verses expand the theme of slander and speak about those who would judge their brothers ( other jews). They are told only God has the right to be lawgiver and judge, so they need to back off. I'm guessing that was also a problem or James would not have mentioned it.
I am more than ever convinced that this book was written by a Pharisee. Read a Jewish description of Pharisees and their teachings. Jesus is only mentioned twice, and is not even necessary, except to try to establish this letter as christian. The teachings of the first century Pharisees are fully compatible with the teachings of James.
*There must have been fights and quarrels happening among the Jews in the diaspora, because James feels the need to address them. He says they happen when people don't get what they want.but that is their own fault, says James. First, they didn't ask God. Second, if they did ask god, it was with the wrong motive-- personal pleasure. Isn't most of what we want for our personal pleasure? Maybe that's why the number of unanswered prayers far outnumbers the answered ones? Surely it can't mean there is no actual God who is listening with invisible and immaterial ears?
*Next James rebukes the readers for trying to be friends of the world (adulterous people, a term used for those unfaithful to the religion, adulteresses in the literal greek translation) which would make them an enemy of God. This echoes the sentiment in James 1:27 that they need to keep themselves from being polluted by the world.
*Verse 5 is strange. It says, "Or do you think scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?" (NIV) A foot note has two other possible wordings for that sentence. Plus, there doesn't appear to be an old or New Testament scripture that actually says that. In the different versions there doesn't appear to be a consensus as to who is doing the yearning, our spirit or God. If it is God, he is longing jealously for our spirit. If it is our spirit, it longs jealously but who knows for what.
*But it's all okay if the readers are humble and not proud. Then comes ten commands: 1. Submit to God. 2. Resist the devil. 4.Come near to God. 5. Wash your hands. 6. Purify your hearts 7. Grieve, mourn and wail. 8. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. (Cheerful lot, eh?) 9. Humble yourselves before the lord. 10. Do not slander a brother (fellow Jew).
*The last few verses expand the theme of slander and speak about those who would judge their brothers ( other jews). They are told only God has the right to be lawgiver and judge, so they need to back off. I'm guessing that was also a problem or James would not have mentioned it.
I am more than ever convinced that this book was written by a Pharisee. Read a Jewish description of Pharisees and their teachings. Jesus is only mentioned twice, and is not even necessary, except to try to establish this letter as christian. The teachings of the first century Pharisees are fully compatible with the teachings of James.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
James chapter 3
After reading chapter 3:
*The first section of this chapter is about the destructive power of the tongue. In other words, words can hurt ourselves and others. You don't have to be religious to recognize this is a universal truism. James advocates self control when speaking, to keep ourselves out of trouble, earthly and eternal. Earthly trouble can be quite enough.
*James says that no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (Like a serpent) That is just one of the many metaphors he uses to describe how destructive words can be. The three things he faults the tongue for are: teaching wrong things, great boasts, and cursing other people. James says this is wrong because people are made in the image of the same God whom they praise.
*Suppose we are not made in the image of a god. For what reasons would we wish to refrain from using our words unwisely or hurtfully? One reason is consequences. People don't like liars, braggarts, and insulting people. They often retaliate in kind or terminate the relationship. If you truly value relationships, you refrain from using your words in this way. If you value your job or your place in society, you learn to curb your tongue to continue recieving the benefits you derive from them. It is in your self interest. Another reason might be because you are truly interested in the welfare of all humanity because you are a human too. You want to be the kind of person who is thoughtful and empathetic. You wish others to treat you as you treat them, so you treat them well. In spite of what James says, the tongue can be tamed but it takes desire and conscious effort.
*The second section, starting in verse 13 compares and contrasts "earthly wisdom" with "heavenly wisdom." James says earthly wisdom is comprised of envy and selfish ambition. It is unspiritual, evil, from the devil, and brings about disorder. He says heavenly wisdom is comprised of the qualities of a peacemaker: pureness, consideration, submissiveness, mercy, and sincerity. What is James trying to say? Don't rock the boat? Sit down and shut up? It seems to me that these descriptions could be looked at from different perspectives. A jealous person could see someone who is a go-getter and financially successful as fundamentally selfish, when it might not necessarily be so. Likewise, a person who appears considerate and submissive could be harboring the vilest thoughts. It's hard to see past a façade.
*James's descriptions of wisdom appear to be based on actions and visible qualities, which is not surprising. He is very focussed on deeds. Actions speak louder than words for him and he judges people by what they do and say. If what people do and say doesn't fit James's idea of what is right, then it must be wrong. He's also not too keen on people who have achieved financial prominence in society.
*We all know that the stereotype of the greedy rich person still persists today. How many people pay attention when a poor person is greedy and selfish? Likewise how many people celebrate the kindness and generosity of a rich person? I'm not saying stereotypes are never remotely true, but motives are very hard to accurately judge. "People are people wherever you go." Isn't it better to assume everyone has good intentions until proven otherwise? Wouldn't you want that done for you?
Remember, all generalizations are false.
*The first section of this chapter is about the destructive power of the tongue. In other words, words can hurt ourselves and others. You don't have to be religious to recognize this is a universal truism. James advocates self control when speaking, to keep ourselves out of trouble, earthly and eternal. Earthly trouble can be quite enough.
*James says that no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (Like a serpent) That is just one of the many metaphors he uses to describe how destructive words can be. The three things he faults the tongue for are: teaching wrong things, great boasts, and cursing other people. James says this is wrong because people are made in the image of the same God whom they praise.
*Suppose we are not made in the image of a god. For what reasons would we wish to refrain from using our words unwisely or hurtfully? One reason is consequences. People don't like liars, braggarts, and insulting people. They often retaliate in kind or terminate the relationship. If you truly value relationships, you refrain from using your words in this way. If you value your job or your place in society, you learn to curb your tongue to continue recieving the benefits you derive from them. It is in your self interest. Another reason might be because you are truly interested in the welfare of all humanity because you are a human too. You want to be the kind of person who is thoughtful and empathetic. You wish others to treat you as you treat them, so you treat them well. In spite of what James says, the tongue can be tamed but it takes desire and conscious effort.
*The second section, starting in verse 13 compares and contrasts "earthly wisdom" with "heavenly wisdom." James says earthly wisdom is comprised of envy and selfish ambition. It is unspiritual, evil, from the devil, and brings about disorder. He says heavenly wisdom is comprised of the qualities of a peacemaker: pureness, consideration, submissiveness, mercy, and sincerity. What is James trying to say? Don't rock the boat? Sit down and shut up? It seems to me that these descriptions could be looked at from different perspectives. A jealous person could see someone who is a go-getter and financially successful as fundamentally selfish, when it might not necessarily be so. Likewise, a person who appears considerate and submissive could be harboring the vilest thoughts. It's hard to see past a façade.
*James's descriptions of wisdom appear to be based on actions and visible qualities, which is not surprising. He is very focussed on deeds. Actions speak louder than words for him and he judges people by what they do and say. If what people do and say doesn't fit James's idea of what is right, then it must be wrong. He's also not too keen on people who have achieved financial prominence in society.
*We all know that the stereotype of the greedy rich person still persists today. How many people pay attention when a poor person is greedy and selfish? Likewise how many people celebrate the kindness and generosity of a rich person? I'm not saying stereotypes are never remotely true, but motives are very hard to accurately judge. "People are people wherever you go." Isn't it better to assume everyone has good intentions until proven otherwise? Wouldn't you want that done for you?
Remember, all generalizations are false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)