We are at Mark 13:5. Jesus is going to give a speech about the signs that will happen when the temple is about to be destroyed. It is probably a retroactive prophecy. Here are the various signs:
1. People who are not Jesus claiming to be Jesus or the messiah/christ.
2. Wars and rumors of wars.
3. Earthquakes and famines.
4. Flogging of the disciples of Jesus. (That's who Jesus is talking to, and he says "you." It would be wrong to say this applies to future christians in general.)
5. Arrests of disciples of Jesus after they preach the gospel to all nations and their appearance before governors and kings.
6. Betrayal by family members.
7. Hatred of the disciples because of Jesus. (Again, he says "you.")
When they see the "abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong" they must escape Jerusalem, not stopping for anything. (There is no consensus as to what abomination of desolation means.) It will be a time of great distress and not safe for the weak. However, that turmoil will not last long, "for the sake of the elect." Here, the elect could be Jews, who traditionally considered themselves Yahweh's elect, or Jesus's disciples. It is not clear here specifically who the elect are. However, if this was written after Paul wrote and preached, it may be referring to Paul's teaching in Romans chapter 11. There, the elect are a "remnant chosen by grace," not Jews, but gentiles.
The disciples are to be aware of the possibility of false christs and false prophets who will try to perform signs and miracles to deceive them. After the distress (the 70CE fall of Jerusalem?), "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken." Jesus is quoting a passage from Isaiah 13:10. Its context is a supposed prophecy against Babylon, which in the symbolism of the New Testament book of Revelation, is equated with Rome. However, Mark seems to be equating it with Jerusalem/Israel. If one was living in Rome at the time, it might also be an apt description of the 79CE eruption of Vesuvius. That would make the original date of Mark even later.
The earliest Biblical symbolism of sun, moon and stars, is in Genesis, where Joseph dreams about the sun, moon, and stars bowing down to him. The sun and moon represented his parents. The stars represented his brothers. The sun= Jacob= Israel= the Jewish nation. The sun is also a universal symbol for a king or divine ruler. The moon represents his consort. The stars/constellations/heavenly bodies are the divine children. Notice that there are twelve zodiac constellations and twelve tribes of Israel. There are also twelve disciples. This may not be a coincidence. All of this is my speculation.
In verse 26, the author makes Jesus say that at "that time men will see the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory." This never happened, unless we are missing a record of it. The son of man is supposed to send his angels to gather his elect. Either this is metaphor for something like apostles teaching to the gentiles or it is meant to be literal. In that case, it didn't happen.
Jesus goes on to say that the above signs will let the disciples know when the destruction of the temple will occur. Then he says "this generation will not pass away until all this things have happened." That seems quite straightforward to me. That generation has passed away, so these things must have already happened right? Jesus continues on to say neither the angels nor the son know the exact time of these coming events, only the father (god). Clearly then, Jesus is not god.
Showing posts with label Jerusalem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jerusalem. Show all posts
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Mark part nineteen
We are at Mark 10:41. The other ten disciples have heard about James' and John's request to be Jesus's top men. They were miffed. Jesus again tells them that unlike the governing gentile authorities of the day (Romans), whoever wants to be great among them must be a servant. "Whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the son of man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." I feel it is important here to mention that son of man literally means a human being, not a divine being. Plus, even though that is capitalized in the NIV, (meant to Indicate reverence to god) it was not done so in the ancient Greek.
Let's talk about ransom. That's what you pay a kidnapper to get back your child, right? Or a foreign villain to get back your VIP. Or an abductor to get back your beloved. Or a ruler to set his captives free. You pay so the person you value doesn't get harmed or dead, right? So who is the bad guy that's being paid off here? Who are the many who have been captured and are being threatened? Oh my. Did Jesus think his death would free the Israelites from the power of Rome?
The last location given for Jesus and the disciples was "on the way to Jerusalem." Now they have come to Jericho. There, Jesus heals a blind man named Bartimaeus, who then follows Jesus. They next came to Bethany and the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent two of his disciples to fetch a young never ridden colt tied up at the entrance to the village. If this happened, it is likely that this was prearranged. The disciples were to tell anyone who questioned them that "the lord needs it and will send it back shortly." Lord is capitalized in my NIV bible, but remember, it would not have been in the ancient Greek. Also, though "lord" is often used to refer Yahweh, it is also used to refer to a master, ruler, or slave owner.
The colt was found and brought to Jesus and he got on it. On the way into Jerusalem, people spread their cloaks on the road, as well as branches cut in the fields. What kind of branches grow in fields? Maybe its stalks from some kind of grain. It certainly doesn't sound like palm branches. People walked in front of Jesus and behind him shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! In this way, he travelled to the temple. When he got there, he looked around, but it was already late, so he went back to Bethany with the disciples.
Wait. What?!! That's a very anti-climactic end to his triumphal ride. Jesus rode into Jerusalem accompanied by people shouting, but when he gets there, nothing happens! It's late so there probably is no crowd to witness his grand entrance and the people he wants to impress have probably gone home to dinner. So, he turns around and goes back??? This doesn't sound like any Jesus story I've heard before. Where are the witnesses to this non-event? Again, it seems that Mark is subtlely explaining why no one seems to have known about it.
The next day, they left Bethany again, apparently on foot. Jesus was hungry and spied a fig tree without fruit, because it was out of season for figs. So, he cursed the fig tree. He must have been "hangry." When he gets to the temple area, Jesus begins driving out those who were buying and selling, and exchanging currency. He turned over the tables of the business people and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. These businesses were a convenience to the worshipper and the business of the temple. They provided a way for travellers to purchase animals for the required sacrifices, so they didn't have to cart animals long distances.
The text says Jesus used this as a teaching moment, reciting Isaiah 5:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." He adds that instead it has been made a den of robbers. Earlier, in Isaiah 56:6, Yahweh talks talks about foreigner's burnt offerings and sacrifices being accepted. How can they make burnt offerings without animals? How can they get animals without buying them?
How can they buy them with local money, if they don't exchange the money they brought with them?
There probably were inflated prices and graft, but hey, isn't this a kind of example of supply and demand economics?
Let's talk about ransom. That's what you pay a kidnapper to get back your child, right? Or a foreign villain to get back your VIP. Or an abductor to get back your beloved. Or a ruler to set his captives free. You pay so the person you value doesn't get harmed or dead, right? So who is the bad guy that's being paid off here? Who are the many who have been captured and are being threatened? Oh my. Did Jesus think his death would free the Israelites from the power of Rome?
The last location given for Jesus and the disciples was "on the way to Jerusalem." Now they have come to Jericho. There, Jesus heals a blind man named Bartimaeus, who then follows Jesus. They next came to Bethany and the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent two of his disciples to fetch a young never ridden colt tied up at the entrance to the village. If this happened, it is likely that this was prearranged. The disciples were to tell anyone who questioned them that "the lord needs it and will send it back shortly." Lord is capitalized in my NIV bible, but remember, it would not have been in the ancient Greek. Also, though "lord" is often used to refer Yahweh, it is also used to refer to a master, ruler, or slave owner.
The colt was found and brought to Jesus and he got on it. On the way into Jerusalem, people spread their cloaks on the road, as well as branches cut in the fields. What kind of branches grow in fields? Maybe its stalks from some kind of grain. It certainly doesn't sound like palm branches. People walked in front of Jesus and behind him shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! In this way, he travelled to the temple. When he got there, he looked around, but it was already late, so he went back to Bethany with the disciples.
Wait. What?!! That's a very anti-climactic end to his triumphal ride. Jesus rode into Jerusalem accompanied by people shouting, but when he gets there, nothing happens! It's late so there probably is no crowd to witness his grand entrance and the people he wants to impress have probably gone home to dinner. So, he turns around and goes back??? This doesn't sound like any Jesus story I've heard before. Where are the witnesses to this non-event? Again, it seems that Mark is subtlely explaining why no one seems to have known about it.
The next day, they left Bethany again, apparently on foot. Jesus was hungry and spied a fig tree without fruit, because it was out of season for figs. So, he cursed the fig tree. He must have been "hangry." When he gets to the temple area, Jesus begins driving out those who were buying and selling, and exchanging currency. He turned over the tables of the business people and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. These businesses were a convenience to the worshipper and the business of the temple. They provided a way for travellers to purchase animals for the required sacrifices, so they didn't have to cart animals long distances.
The text says Jesus used this as a teaching moment, reciting Isaiah 5:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." He adds that instead it has been made a den of robbers. Earlier, in Isaiah 56:6, Yahweh talks talks about foreigner's burnt offerings and sacrifices being accepted. How can they make burnt offerings without animals? How can they get animals without buying them?
How can they buy them with local money, if they don't exchange the money they brought with them?
There probably were inflated prices and graft, but hey, isn't this a kind of example of supply and demand economics?
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Heaven part thirteen and wrap up.
We have reached the end of the references to heaven (singular) in Strong's concordance. There a few more under heavens (plural). In Acts 2:29-34, we are told that David died and was buried, and remains in his tomb, he did not ascend to the heavens. I feel this brings up an important point. In christianity, many believers tend to think their love ones ascend to heaven immediately after death. This negates many of the New Testament teachings about a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment, especially what we find in Revelation 20. You can't have it both ways.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1, the author says, "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from god, an eternal house in the heavens, not built by human hands." Okay. So, this house in the heavens, is it in the new Jerusalem that's going to come down from the heavens after the judgment? Do any of the letters attributed to Paul speak of a Holy City or new Jerusalem? I ran those phrases through the search on Bible Gateway. A new Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere but Revelation. Of all the New Testament books, the phrase holy city is only in Matthew and Revelation. Matthew is referring to the city of Jerusalem that existed in the first century.
Did Paul not know about the new heaven and new earth? I looked up those phrases as well. They are only mentioned in Revelation and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter chapter three has a description of the end times that is not couched in symbolism like that of Revelation, but it coincides with events mentioned. In verse 7, the author says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." In verse 10, the author says, "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Verses 12-13 go on to say,"That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." Paul's letters do not mention those phrases at all.
In reality, the earthly and heavenly dwellings mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are referring to supposedly earthly and heavenly personal bodies. Paul was big on talking about how believers would get new indestructible bodies. He doesn't seem to have mentioned much else about the afterlife and the actual place those bodies will reside.
Let's see if we can find anything else new and interesting in the New Testament under the word "heavenly." 1 Corinthians chapter 15 discusses the resurrection, but even though the author rambles on about it, he doesn't say much that is concrete or substantial. Like I said before it is mostly about the difference between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, the resurrection of physical bodies, and their transformation into spiritual, imperishable ones. This will all happen "in a flash, in the tinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." Nothing about heaven, the holy city, or what will go on in the afterlife.
In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul says, "The lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom." Is this the same kingdom that will be the New Jerusalem coming down out of the heavens after the judgment?
Hebrews 11:16 says that a heavenly country and city are prepared by god for the faithful. In Hebrews chapter 12, the author speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god. Again the writer of Hebrews tells us that earthly things are just representations of the heavenly reality. In verses 26-28, we are told that the earthly or created things will be removed so that what cannot be shaken, god's kingdom, remains.
Does any of this coincide with what you have learned about heaven? It certainly isn't what I was taught and what I continue to hear from Christians around me.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1, the author says, "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from god, an eternal house in the heavens, not built by human hands." Okay. So, this house in the heavens, is it in the new Jerusalem that's going to come down from the heavens after the judgment? Do any of the letters attributed to Paul speak of a Holy City or new Jerusalem? I ran those phrases through the search on Bible Gateway. A new Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere but Revelation. Of all the New Testament books, the phrase holy city is only in Matthew and Revelation. Matthew is referring to the city of Jerusalem that existed in the first century.
Did Paul not know about the new heaven and new earth? I looked up those phrases as well. They are only mentioned in Revelation and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter chapter three has a description of the end times that is not couched in symbolism like that of Revelation, but it coincides with events mentioned. In verse 7, the author says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." In verse 10, the author says, "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Verses 12-13 go on to say,"That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." Paul's letters do not mention those phrases at all.
In reality, the earthly and heavenly dwellings mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are referring to supposedly earthly and heavenly personal bodies. Paul was big on talking about how believers would get new indestructible bodies. He doesn't seem to have mentioned much else about the afterlife and the actual place those bodies will reside.
Let's see if we can find anything else new and interesting in the New Testament under the word "heavenly." 1 Corinthians chapter 15 discusses the resurrection, but even though the author rambles on about it, he doesn't say much that is concrete or substantial. Like I said before it is mostly about the difference between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, the resurrection of physical bodies, and their transformation into spiritual, imperishable ones. This will all happen "in a flash, in the tinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." Nothing about heaven, the holy city, or what will go on in the afterlife.
In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul says, "The lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom." Is this the same kingdom that will be the New Jerusalem coming down out of the heavens after the judgment?
Hebrews 11:16 says that a heavenly country and city are prepared by god for the faithful. In Hebrews chapter 12, the author speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god. Again the writer of Hebrews tells us that earthly things are just representations of the heavenly reality. In verses 26-28, we are told that the earthly or created things will be removed so that what cannot be shaken, god's kingdom, remains.
Does any of this coincide with what you have learned about heaven? It certainly isn't what I was taught and what I continue to hear from Christians around me.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Heaven part twelve
Here we are again, back in heaven. As we go to Revelation chapter 15, we see there is a temple in heaven called the "tabernacle of testimony." Seven shining angels come out of the temple with seven plagues. Those four strange creatures with all the eyes and wings, that were said to be near the throne of god, give the angels seven bowls filled with god's wrath. The temple was filled with smoke from the glory of god and no one can enter. The angels release the plagues in the next few chapters.
In chapter 19, there is a white horse in heaven whose rider is "the word of god," obviously a reference to the christ. The armies of heaven are following him. An angel stands in the sun and yells to all the birds to come feast on the flesh of all people. There is a great battle which the christ wins, of course. The birds feast, Satan is thrown into the abyss, and the christ reigns for 1,000 years. After the thousand years, Satan is released, there is another battle, and Satan's army is defeated by fire from heaven. Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, the judgement of the dead happens, then chapter 21 introduces us to the author's vision of the new heaven and new earth.
The old heaven and old earth are gone and there is no longer any sea. The holy city, a new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from god, like a bride dressed for her husband. . The personage sitting on the throne (Yahweh?) says, "I am making everything new....It is done. I am the alpha and the omega...." (I thought the alpha and omega was supposed to refer to Jesus?)Everyone who overcomes will inherit the spring of the water of life, and he will be their god, and they will be his son. (No women?)
The new Jerusalem coming down from heaven is said to be shining with the glory of god. That's funny, in chapter 15, the glory of god was smoke. The holy city gleamed like a precious jewel or crystal.. "It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel....The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb." Do you see why some Christians today are obsessed with Israel and Jerusalem?
The holy city was 12,000 stadia (1,400 miles) long, wide, and HIGH! The wall was 144 (12x12) cubits thick. "The wall was made of jasper and the city of pure gold...The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every precious stone" in twelve layers. The twelve gates were made of twelve single pearls. The streets were of pure gold. There is no temple, god and the lamb are its temple. There is no sun or moon, god and the lamb are the light. The gates will never shut because it will never be night. Nothing impure will ever enter it, only those whose names are written in the lamb's book of life.
The river of the water of life will flow from the the throne of god and the lamb (they sit on the same throne? ) down the middle of the great street. "On each side of the river stood the tree of life." What? Does the tree straddle the river? Or are there two trees of life? The tree is bearing twelve crops of fruit, one crop each month. The leaves of the tree are for healing the nations. There will be no more curse. The throne of god and the lamb will be in the city and his servants will see him and his name will be on their foreheads, and they will reign forever and ever. Revelation ends with a warning that anyone who takes words away from this book of prophecy will have his share in the tree of life and the holy city taken away from him.
Well, well, well. That was interesting. Did you see all the times the magic numbers seven and twelve were used? Do you think this description of the new Jerusalem was meant to be taken literally? If it is metaphorical or symbolic, what exactly does it represent?Did you notice that the saved don't go up to heaven? They go to live in the holy city, which comes down to the new earth. God and Jesus come down to earth with the holy city. Everything glows with an eternal light. No sun, no moon. Who is left in heaven? All the multitudes of angels?
In chapter 19, there is a white horse in heaven whose rider is "the word of god," obviously a reference to the christ. The armies of heaven are following him. An angel stands in the sun and yells to all the birds to come feast on the flesh of all people. There is a great battle which the christ wins, of course. The birds feast, Satan is thrown into the abyss, and the christ reigns for 1,000 years. After the thousand years, Satan is released, there is another battle, and Satan's army is defeated by fire from heaven. Satan is thrown into the lake of fire, the judgement of the dead happens, then chapter 21 introduces us to the author's vision of the new heaven and new earth.
The old heaven and old earth are gone and there is no longer any sea. The holy city, a new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from god, like a bride dressed for her husband. . The personage sitting on the throne (Yahweh?) says, "I am making everything new....It is done. I am the alpha and the omega...." (I thought the alpha and omega was supposed to refer to Jesus?)Everyone who overcomes will inherit the spring of the water of life, and he will be their god, and they will be his son. (No women?)
The new Jerusalem coming down from heaven is said to be shining with the glory of god. That's funny, in chapter 15, the glory of god was smoke. The holy city gleamed like a precious jewel or crystal.. "It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel....The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb." Do you see why some Christians today are obsessed with Israel and Jerusalem?
The holy city was 12,000 stadia (1,400 miles) long, wide, and HIGH! The wall was 144 (12x12) cubits thick. "The wall was made of jasper and the city of pure gold...The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every precious stone" in twelve layers. The twelve gates were made of twelve single pearls. The streets were of pure gold. There is no temple, god and the lamb are its temple. There is no sun or moon, god and the lamb are the light. The gates will never shut because it will never be night. Nothing impure will ever enter it, only those whose names are written in the lamb's book of life.
The river of the water of life will flow from the the throne of god and the lamb (they sit on the same throne? ) down the middle of the great street. "On each side of the river stood the tree of life." What? Does the tree straddle the river? Or are there two trees of life? The tree is bearing twelve crops of fruit, one crop each month. The leaves of the tree are for healing the nations. There will be no more curse. The throne of god and the lamb will be in the city and his servants will see him and his name will be on their foreheads, and they will reign forever and ever. Revelation ends with a warning that anyone who takes words away from this book of prophecy will have his share in the tree of life and the holy city taken away from him.
Well, well, well. That was interesting. Did you see all the times the magic numbers seven and twelve were used? Do you think this description of the new Jerusalem was meant to be taken literally? If it is metaphorical or symbolic, what exactly does it represent?Did you notice that the saved don't go up to heaven? They go to live in the holy city, which comes down to the new earth. God and Jesus come down to earth with the holy city. Everything glows with an eternal light. No sun, no moon. Who is left in heaven? All the multitudes of angels?
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
High priest Joshua, part 3
We left off in Zechariah chapter 2. This chapter does not mention the high priest Joshua, but I am doing a summary of Zechariah so we can see where Joshua fits in the book. Last time I mentioned I wanted to explore something about this particular chapter. I was confused at the way the angel's speech to Zechariah was worded in the NIV. It seemed as if there were two "Lords" speaking, the plain lord and the lord almighty. Plus, an angel was speaking on behalf of the lord, as though he was the lord. It was confusing and I needed to get it straight in my head. I'm still confused. In verses 8-13, all the words "lord" are from the word yahweh, but yahweh appears to be talking about himself in the third and first person at the same time. It is a grammatical horror. I decided to compare the Christian version of Zechariah 2 with the Jewish version. They are quite different in grammatical structure, but I am no more enlightened than I was before. So, we will move on to chapter three.
Zechariah is telling what else happened in his vision. The angel who was speaking to him showed him Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the lord. The angel of the lord in these kinds of situations usually appears to physically represent the lord and speak for him, almost as if he is the lord, but he is not. It can get confusing. This angel of the lord was thought to be the archangel Michael, as seen in Jude. Satan is standing at Joshua's right side to accuse him. This is not the Christian version of Satan, but the Jewish version. He is kind of like a prosecuting attorney, trying to prove the defendant guilty. The lord (actually the angel) said to Satan, "the lord rebuke you, Satan," then the angel requested that Joshua's filthy clothes, representing sin, be taken away, and rich garments be put on him. Zechariah told the angel to put a clean turban on Joshua's head, and it was done.
Next, the angel of the lord commissioned Joshua to govern the temple, if Joshua would walk in Yahweh's ways. Then he would be given a place among the angels. He told Joshua that he and his associates were symbolic of things to come. Yahweh was going to bring his servant, the Branch. This refers to prophecies in Ezekiel 17 and Isaiah 4, about Yahweh restoring Jerusalem,and maybe the monarchy, with a descendant of the old monarchy. My study bible calls it a messianic prophecy, but I think the author is just referring to the restoration of Jerusalem. The chapter goes on to predict an ideal future for the land. It should be noted that this was probably written before the Greeks and Romans came to conquer the holy land. There was no need for a savior. Things were going to be fixed. The Jews were migrating back to their homeland and rebuilding their city as well as their relationship with Yahweh. Later jews looking for a savior may have tried to find hope of a messiah in this passage, but I doubt that was the original purpose. Funny that the prophet Zechariah did not foresee the future conquests.
In chapter 4, the angel of the lord wakes Zechariah up, only to find himself in another symbolic vision with lamp stands, lights, olive trees, etc. this is supposed to represent the word of the lord about Zerubbabel laying the foundation of the temple and completing it. The two olives trees represent two who are anointed to serve the lord of all the earth. It could be the new king and the new high priest. My study bible says it could be another messianic vision of a future combination priest-king. However, these are two separate and distinct olive trees.
In chapter 5, Zechariah does a double take and sees a flying scroll. It is a curse against all thieves and liars. Then the angel draws his attention to a basket. It was a measuring basket, inside the basket was a woman. She represented wickedness. (Ugh, it would be a woman.) the basket has a lead cover which was pushed down over the top. It was lifted up by two other women with wings who carried it away to Babylon.
We will continue on next time.
Zechariah is telling what else happened in his vision. The angel who was speaking to him showed him Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the lord. The angel of the lord in these kinds of situations usually appears to physically represent the lord and speak for him, almost as if he is the lord, but he is not. It can get confusing. This angel of the lord was thought to be the archangel Michael, as seen in Jude. Satan is standing at Joshua's right side to accuse him. This is not the Christian version of Satan, but the Jewish version. He is kind of like a prosecuting attorney, trying to prove the defendant guilty. The lord (actually the angel) said to Satan, "the lord rebuke you, Satan," then the angel requested that Joshua's filthy clothes, representing sin, be taken away, and rich garments be put on him. Zechariah told the angel to put a clean turban on Joshua's head, and it was done.
Next, the angel of the lord commissioned Joshua to govern the temple, if Joshua would walk in Yahweh's ways. Then he would be given a place among the angels. He told Joshua that he and his associates were symbolic of things to come. Yahweh was going to bring his servant, the Branch. This refers to prophecies in Ezekiel 17 and Isaiah 4, about Yahweh restoring Jerusalem,and maybe the monarchy, with a descendant of the old monarchy. My study bible calls it a messianic prophecy, but I think the author is just referring to the restoration of Jerusalem. The chapter goes on to predict an ideal future for the land. It should be noted that this was probably written before the Greeks and Romans came to conquer the holy land. There was no need for a savior. Things were going to be fixed. The Jews were migrating back to their homeland and rebuilding their city as well as their relationship with Yahweh. Later jews looking for a savior may have tried to find hope of a messiah in this passage, but I doubt that was the original purpose. Funny that the prophet Zechariah did not foresee the future conquests.
In chapter 4, the angel of the lord wakes Zechariah up, only to find himself in another symbolic vision with lamp stands, lights, olive trees, etc. this is supposed to represent the word of the lord about Zerubbabel laying the foundation of the temple and completing it. The two olives trees represent two who are anointed to serve the lord of all the earth. It could be the new king and the new high priest. My study bible says it could be another messianic vision of a future combination priest-king. However, these are two separate and distinct olive trees.
In chapter 5, Zechariah does a double take and sees a flying scroll. It is a curse against all thieves and liars. Then the angel draws his attention to a basket. It was a measuring basket, inside the basket was a woman. She represented wickedness. (Ugh, it would be a woman.) the basket has a lead cover which was pushed down over the top. It was lifted up by two other women with wings who carried it away to Babylon.
We will continue on next time.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
The High Priest Joshua, part 2
Now let us look at what Haggai and Zechariah have to say about the priest Joshua/Jeshua. They were supposedly present at the rebuilding of the second temple in Jerusalem.
Haggai 1:1 tells us Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, was the high priest in the second year of King Darius. At that Time, Haggai was prophet to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah. The book speaks of Haggai completely in third person but its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Haggai. This seems to be a common practice in the Bible. To me it is clear that the true author/authors are unknown, especially when the book itself makes no authorship claims. The time period that the events are to have taken place is fairly easy to figure out because there is secular history of Darius and the Persian Empire.
In verses 1:12&14, we are told that the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel listened to and obeyed Haggai because he was god's messenger and delivered "the voice of the lord." So Haggai was kind of telling everyone what to do and claiming it was god's will. Haggai's message from the Lord was "I am with you." This made them all anxious to build god a house, the temple.
In chapter 2, Haggai continues to tell Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor what god is saying. Why can't god speak to them directly? That is so weird, and suspicious. Anyway, they are told god's spirit will stay with them and they are not to be afraid. The new temple they build for him will be greater than the previous one. "The silver and the gold is mine," declares the lord. Ha! Even more suspicious. Then god tells them that they were defiled before, now they will be blessed. Plus, Zerubbabel will be like god's chosen king. That's pretty much it. Nothing different or earth shattering. The word of the lord came from Haggai in the second year of Darius, on the sixth, seventh and ninth months. He does not mention Zechariah.
Let's look at Zechariah. This book begins in third person with a kind of introduction. It says the word of the lord came to Zechariah in the second year, on the eighth and eleventh months. How convenient, another mouthpiece of god, one who can speak for god on the months when Haggai doesn't. The word of the lord is a little more harsh in tone coming from the introduction to Zechariah. He tells the people they need to turn from their evil ways and repent. If they return to him, he will return to them.
Starting in verse 1:8, the narrative switches to first person and appears to be coming directly from Zechariah. He is having visions. These visions have elements and symbols that are common to other apocalyptic writings. You've got horsemen on horses of different colors riding through the earth, and angels talking with "the lord" and Zechariah. (Move over Revelation.) But these horsemen said they rode through the earth and found peace. When does Jerusalem get a piece of it? The lord says he is going to return to Jerusalem. His house will be rebuilt and prosperity will return. Then he speaks of four horns that scattered Judah and four craftsmen who will throw down the horns. This predicts a defeat of Israel's enemies.
In chapter two we read Zechariah's continuing vision of the coming glory of the new Jerusalem. It won't have exterior walls because the lord himself will be a wall of fire around it. Well. That didn't happen. According to Ezra-Nehemiah, walls were built. Zechariah continues with a theme of the Jews returning to Jerusalem and "the lord" returning to live with them. There is something going on in this 2nd chapter that I want to explore next time. Till then.
Haggai 1:1 tells us Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, was the high priest in the second year of King Darius. At that Time, Haggai was prophet to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah. The book speaks of Haggai completely in third person but its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Haggai. This seems to be a common practice in the Bible. To me it is clear that the true author/authors are unknown, especially when the book itself makes no authorship claims. The time period that the events are to have taken place is fairly easy to figure out because there is secular history of Darius and the Persian Empire.
In verses 1:12&14, we are told that the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel listened to and obeyed Haggai because he was god's messenger and delivered "the voice of the lord." So Haggai was kind of telling everyone what to do and claiming it was god's will. Haggai's message from the Lord was "I am with you." This made them all anxious to build god a house, the temple.
In chapter 2, Haggai continues to tell Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor what god is saying. Why can't god speak to them directly? That is so weird, and suspicious. Anyway, they are told god's spirit will stay with them and they are not to be afraid. The new temple they build for him will be greater than the previous one. "The silver and the gold is mine," declares the lord. Ha! Even more suspicious. Then god tells them that they were defiled before, now they will be blessed. Plus, Zerubbabel will be like god's chosen king. That's pretty much it. Nothing different or earth shattering. The word of the lord came from Haggai in the second year of Darius, on the sixth, seventh and ninth months. He does not mention Zechariah.
Let's look at Zechariah. This book begins in third person with a kind of introduction. It says the word of the lord came to Zechariah in the second year, on the eighth and eleventh months. How convenient, another mouthpiece of god, one who can speak for god on the months when Haggai doesn't. The word of the lord is a little more harsh in tone coming from the introduction to Zechariah. He tells the people they need to turn from their evil ways and repent. If they return to him, he will return to them.
Starting in verse 1:8, the narrative switches to first person and appears to be coming directly from Zechariah. He is having visions. These visions have elements and symbols that are common to other apocalyptic writings. You've got horsemen on horses of different colors riding through the earth, and angels talking with "the lord" and Zechariah. (Move over Revelation.) But these horsemen said they rode through the earth and found peace. When does Jerusalem get a piece of it? The lord says he is going to return to Jerusalem. His house will be rebuilt and prosperity will return. Then he speaks of four horns that scattered Judah and four craftsmen who will throw down the horns. This predicts a defeat of Israel's enemies.
In chapter two we read Zechariah's continuing vision of the coming glory of the new Jerusalem. It won't have exterior walls because the lord himself will be a wall of fire around it. Well. That didn't happen. According to Ezra-Nehemiah, walls were built. Zechariah continues with a theme of the Jews returning to Jerusalem and "the lord" returning to live with them. There is something going on in this 2nd chapter that I want to explore next time. Till then.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Jude afterthoughts, the High Priest Joshua
I got to thinking about that High Priest Joshua guy from Zecariah 3 and I thought it would be a shame
not to explore who he was while he was fresh in our minds. First of all, let's remember that the name Joshua = Yeshua= Jesus. It's the same name, but not necessarily the same person. However, I would like to consider the possibility that the myth and cult surrounding Jesus might have had an origin in the mythic tradition surrounding the high priest Joshua that Jude was probably referring to. In fact one possibility is that the only word in Jude that was changed is the word Jesus (Yeshua) into the word Moses in verse 9. The other Jesus phrases may have been in the original text, actually referring to the high priest of Zechariah, not the Jesus of Nazareth. There is no way to know, but, to me, these speculations make more sense than that Jude was written by a christian worshipper of the New Testament Jesus. That Jesus can't be found in the book of Jude.
First let's note that the high priest Joshua is called Jeshua the son of Jozadak in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. He is called Joshua son of Josedech in Haggai and Zechariah. They are considered the same person.
In Ezra 2:2, we see Jeshua was a Babylonian exile, returning to Jerusalem. In Ezra 3:2, we see Jeshua is a priest. Seven months after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests build the altar of god to burn sacrifices. In Ezra 3:8, two years after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests and Levites supervise the building of the new temple. In Ezra 4:3, the people who were living in the land when the exiles returned wanted to help build the new temple because they had also been worshipping Yahweh. Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel refused their help. The locals resented that and set about trying to sabatoge the building. Eventually, after multiple complications, the building came to a stop. In Ezra 5:2, Haggai and Zechariah were prophets, the ones who later supposedly wrote about Joshua/Jeshua. They were helping Jeshua try to rebuild the temple. They finished the temple in Ezra 6. In Ezra 7, many more exiles returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, including Ezra, supposedly the writer of this book, even though it refers to him in the third person. They brought many levites and lots of treasure for the temple with them. When the new group got to Jerusalem, they had a great sacrifice to god. Later, they were told that the previous group of returned exiles had intermarried with the locals. Ezra was appalled. After a lot of weeping, wailing, and repenting, all the men who had married "foreign" women were required to "put away" their wives, which probably meant to divorce them. Then they had to each sacrifice a ram as a guilt offering. This included descendants in Jeshua's family.
I always think its funny how the bible calls the locals of that land foreigners. Technically, the returning Israelites themselves were the foreigners by that time.
In Nehemiah, we have an account of later events. Ezra had left Babylon for Jerusalem in Artaxerxes 7th year. Nehemiah left Babylon in the 20th year. He left because he heard that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and its gates burnt. He wants to help rebuild. After the walls have been rebuilt and guards appointed, Nehemiah wants to register everyone. He finds the genealogical records of the first group of returned exiles. Jeshua's name is included in Nehemial 7:7, 12:1, 7, 10 (there we learn names of one of Jeshua's sons and some of his grandsons.) In this book Jeshua's son is called Joiakim. Joiakim served "in the days of Nehemiah the governor and Ezra the priest and scribe." The name Jeshua is repeated a few times in the book of Nehemiah, but it is unclear if it always the same Jeshua.
That's pretty much it for Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. The only definite claim to fame in these books is that he was a levite priest and one of the first exiles to return. He was supposed to be instrumental in building the new temple, aka "the house of god."
Next we look at what the books of Haggai and Zechariah have to say about him.
not to explore who he was while he was fresh in our minds. First of all, let's remember that the name Joshua = Yeshua= Jesus. It's the same name, but not necessarily the same person. However, I would like to consider the possibility that the myth and cult surrounding Jesus might have had an origin in the mythic tradition surrounding the high priest Joshua that Jude was probably referring to. In fact one possibility is that the only word in Jude that was changed is the word Jesus (Yeshua) into the word Moses in verse 9. The other Jesus phrases may have been in the original text, actually referring to the high priest of Zechariah, not the Jesus of Nazareth. There is no way to know, but, to me, these speculations make more sense than that Jude was written by a christian worshipper of the New Testament Jesus. That Jesus can't be found in the book of Jude.
First let's note that the high priest Joshua is called Jeshua the son of Jozadak in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. He is called Joshua son of Josedech in Haggai and Zechariah. They are considered the same person.
In Ezra 2:2, we see Jeshua was a Babylonian exile, returning to Jerusalem. In Ezra 3:2, we see Jeshua is a priest. Seven months after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests build the altar of god to burn sacrifices. In Ezra 3:8, two years after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests and Levites supervise the building of the new temple. In Ezra 4:3, the people who were living in the land when the exiles returned wanted to help build the new temple because they had also been worshipping Yahweh. Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel refused their help. The locals resented that and set about trying to sabatoge the building. Eventually, after multiple complications, the building came to a stop. In Ezra 5:2, Haggai and Zechariah were prophets, the ones who later supposedly wrote about Joshua/Jeshua. They were helping Jeshua try to rebuild the temple. They finished the temple in Ezra 6. In Ezra 7, many more exiles returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, including Ezra, supposedly the writer of this book, even though it refers to him in the third person. They brought many levites and lots of treasure for the temple with them. When the new group got to Jerusalem, they had a great sacrifice to god. Later, they were told that the previous group of returned exiles had intermarried with the locals. Ezra was appalled. After a lot of weeping, wailing, and repenting, all the men who had married "foreign" women were required to "put away" their wives, which probably meant to divorce them. Then they had to each sacrifice a ram as a guilt offering. This included descendants in Jeshua's family.
I always think its funny how the bible calls the locals of that land foreigners. Technically, the returning Israelites themselves were the foreigners by that time.
In Nehemiah, we have an account of later events. Ezra had left Babylon for Jerusalem in Artaxerxes 7th year. Nehemiah left Babylon in the 20th year. He left because he heard that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and its gates burnt. He wants to help rebuild. After the walls have been rebuilt and guards appointed, Nehemiah wants to register everyone. He finds the genealogical records of the first group of returned exiles. Jeshua's name is included in Nehemial 7:7, 12:1, 7, 10 (there we learn names of one of Jeshua's sons and some of his grandsons.) In this book Jeshua's son is called Joiakim. Joiakim served "in the days of Nehemiah the governor and Ezra the priest and scribe." The name Jeshua is repeated a few times in the book of Nehemiah, but it is unclear if it always the same Jeshua.
That's pretty much it for Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. The only definite claim to fame in these books is that he was a levite priest and one of the first exiles to return. He was supposed to be instrumental in building the new temple, aka "the house of god."
Next we look at what the books of Haggai and Zechariah have to say about him.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Jesus and Gentiles part 1
*In Galatians we see that the salvation of the Gentiles was Paul's mission in life, Peter's was to the Jews. Paul believed he was commissioned to go preach about Jesus to the Gentiles by Jesus himself, in visions and disembodied voices. He believed that following the law of moses couldn't make a person unsinful (righteous). Faith in Jesus is what did that. Therefore, no one, especially not Gentiles, was obligated to follow the law of moses, including circumcision. The gentile part was agreed upon by Peter, James and John after a council in Jerusalem, with no exceptions but remembering to take care of the poor. They agreed that they would go to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas would go to the Gentiles.
*In Acts, we see both Paul and Peter being commissioned by visions to go to the Gentiles. They both tell their stories to the Jews in Jerusalem, who accept them. Also in Acts 11:20, some Greeks are spreading the "good news" about Jesus to the Gentiles in Antioch. Then Barnabas is sent by the Jews in Jerusalem to check out the believers in Antioch. He was pleased by what he saw, so he went to Tarsus to fetch Paul, where he had presumably been staying since he was sent there by the Jerusalem Jews back in Acts 9:30, a different story than the one Paul tells in Galatians. Paul and Barnabas then worked together in Antioch teaching great numbers of people. Eventually, the circumcision question arises, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, a council is held, and it is agreed that Gentiles don't have to follow any of the law of moses...except for refraining from eating blood, meat sacrificed to idols, and engaging in sexual immorality.
*Here we have two versions of how Gentiles came to become believers in Jesus, along with many
Jews. Which version is the true one? Or did it happen a totally different way? We know for a fact it had to have begun somehow because the majority of christians today are Gentiles, yet christianity has its roots in Judaism. These stories led me to wonder, what would have happened if Paul and Peter had not supposedly claimed to have had personal revelations concerning the Gentiles? If Jesus actually existed, would his teachings as recorded in the gospels alone have been sufficient to create the worldwide phenomenon of Gentile christianity? What did Jesus have to say about and to Gentiles? Did he advocate eventual disposing of the law of Moses? Why was it necessary for Paul and Peter to get special messages? Was Jesus's message while he was alive not clear on the subject? Over the next few posts, we will look at Jesus's words in the gospel to se if we can answer some of these questions.
*In Acts, we see both Paul and Peter being commissioned by visions to go to the Gentiles. They both tell their stories to the Jews in Jerusalem, who accept them. Also in Acts 11:20, some Greeks are spreading the "good news" about Jesus to the Gentiles in Antioch. Then Barnabas is sent by the Jews in Jerusalem to check out the believers in Antioch. He was pleased by what he saw, so he went to Tarsus to fetch Paul, where he had presumably been staying since he was sent there by the Jerusalem Jews back in Acts 9:30, a different story than the one Paul tells in Galatians. Paul and Barnabas then worked together in Antioch teaching great numbers of people. Eventually, the circumcision question arises, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem, a council is held, and it is agreed that Gentiles don't have to follow any of the law of moses...except for refraining from eating blood, meat sacrificed to idols, and engaging in sexual immorality.
*Here we have two versions of how Gentiles came to become believers in Jesus, along with many
Jews. Which version is the true one? Or did it happen a totally different way? We know for a fact it had to have begun somehow because the majority of christians today are Gentiles, yet christianity has its roots in Judaism. These stories led me to wonder, what would have happened if Paul and Peter had not supposedly claimed to have had personal revelations concerning the Gentiles? If Jesus actually existed, would his teachings as recorded in the gospels alone have been sufficient to create the worldwide phenomenon of Gentile christianity? What did Jesus have to say about and to Gentiles? Did he advocate eventual disposing of the law of Moses? Why was it necessary for Paul and Peter to get special messages? Was Jesus's message while he was alive not clear on the subject? Over the next few posts, we will look at Jesus's words in the gospel to se if we can answer some of these questions.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Galatians chapter 2 part 2
*Starting in verse 11 we learn that Peter had been in Antioch with Paul, had been eating with the Gentiles, and had been living like a gentile. In Acts, Peter is not said to have ever been to Antioch, indeed never very far from Jerusalem. In Acts 10, we find a story of Peter experiencing a vision from God which makes it clear that "God accepts men from every nation" including their eating habits. Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and explains his vision to the apostles and other believers. The "circumcised believers" drop all objections to accepting Gentiles. They praise God, saying "So, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) That sounds like the gentile question is settled, right? This supposedly takes place before Paul and Barnabus go to
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Galatians chapter 2, part 1
After reading chapter 2:
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
Friday, December 9, 2016
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 2
*We are at Acts 9:17.Both Saul (Paul) and Ananias have had visions about each other. Now Ananias goes to the house where Saul is staying. He put his hands on Saul. He identified the lord who appeared to Saul on the road as Jesus and says Jesus sent him to help Saul gain his sight back and be filled with the Holy Spirit, whatever that means. Scales fell off Saul's eyes. He got up and was baptized. It doesn't say why he was baptized. Today, it is generally assumed that it was to join the church, but notice that he ate right afterward. I looked at the Interlinear reference for the original word "baptized" in this passage. I found that the exact same word was used in Luke 11:38 (Supposedly written by the same author) to denote a tradition of ceremonial washing before eating!
*Next we are told Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus and immediately began to preach about Jesus in the synagogues. This is in direct contrast to what he says in Galatians 1:15. There he says that after his revelation he did not consult anyone but went immediately to Arabia and returned to Damascus later. Galatians also has Paul going to Jerusalem three years later. In Acts, he appears to go to Jerusalem right after Damascus. He never goes to Arabia. In Galatians, Paul sees only Peter and James, none of the other apostles. In Acts, Barnabas takes Paul to meet the apostles in Jerusalem and he preaches about Jesus in the city. Because of his preaching, Acts says an attempt is made on Paul's life in both Damascus and Jerusalem. Galatians does not mention that. Acts says other believers helped Paul escape by taking him to Caesarea and sending him off to Tarsus. (They sent him home.) Galatians says that Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, it never mentions Tarsus. In Galatians, Paul states, "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in christ." This is a direct contradiction to the events recorded in Acts 9.
*When we get to Galatians 2, we will see Paul going to Jerusalem with Barnabas...fourteen years later! Let's take a look at the timelines so far.
Galatians:
Persecuting the church
Revelation in unknown place, told to preach Jesus to the Gentiles
Trip to Arabia
Return to Damascus no people or events mentioned
Three years later, Trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James and no one else, for fifteen days
Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Fourteen years later, trip to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus in response to a revelation.
Acts:
Stoning of Stephen
Persecuting the church
Road to Damascus with bright light and voice
In Damascus with Ananias and disciples of Jesus
Ananias and Paul recieve visions. Ananias is told that Saul will preach Jesus to the Gentiles.
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Trip to Jerusalem to join the disciples there
Barnabas takes him to meet the apostles
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Sent to Tarsus by the disciples
*Next we are told Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus and immediately began to preach about Jesus in the synagogues. This is in direct contrast to what he says in Galatians 1:15. There he says that after his revelation he did not consult anyone but went immediately to Arabia and returned to Damascus later. Galatians also has Paul going to Jerusalem three years later. In Acts, he appears to go to Jerusalem right after Damascus. He never goes to Arabia. In Galatians, Paul sees only Peter and James, none of the other apostles. In Acts, Barnabas takes Paul to meet the apostles in Jerusalem and he preaches about Jesus in the city. Because of his preaching, Acts says an attempt is made on Paul's life in both Damascus and Jerusalem. Galatians does not mention that. Acts says other believers helped Paul escape by taking him to Caesarea and sending him off to Tarsus. (They sent him home.) Galatians says that Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, it never mentions Tarsus. In Galatians, Paul states, "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in christ." This is a direct contradiction to the events recorded in Acts 9.
*When we get to Galatians 2, we will see Paul going to Jerusalem with Barnabas...fourteen years later! Let's take a look at the timelines so far.
Galatians:
Persecuting the church
Revelation in unknown place, told to preach Jesus to the Gentiles
Trip to Arabia
Return to Damascus no people or events mentioned
Three years later, Trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James and no one else, for fifteen days
Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Fourteen years later, trip to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus in response to a revelation.
Acts:
Stoning of Stephen
Persecuting the church
Road to Damascus with bright light and voice
In Damascus with Ananias and disciples of Jesus
Ananias and Paul recieve visions. Ananias is told that Saul will preach Jesus to the Gentiles.
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Trip to Jerusalem to join the disciples there
Barnabas takes him to meet the apostles
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Sent to Tarsus by the disciples
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Joshua chapter 10, part 1
After reading chapter 10:
*Now that Ai has been destroyed and Gibeon has a peace treaty with the Israelites, other kings in the area were worried. Gibeon was an important acquisition. Five Kings joined forces and decided to attack the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites sent word to Joshua and begged for help. Joshua marched his whole army to the area, with the blessing of Yahweh. He took the armies of the five kings by surprise and they were defeated. As they were running away from the pursuing Israelites, Yahweh threw hailstones at them, so that more were killed by hail than by the sword. The five kingdoms were Jerusalem, Hebron, Lachish, Jarmuth, and Eglon.
*Next is a very interesting passage. On the day of this battle Joshua commanded the sun and the moon to stand still and they did! The sun supposedly stopped in the middle of the sky, which would make it about noon, and delayed going down a full day, presumably 24 hours. This had never happened before and hasn't since. That must mean Yahweh was fighting for Israel, unless it's a fairy tale. Verse 13 says this passage is written in the "Book of Jashar," an apparently lost work of the ancient Israelites.
*We all know that the sun doesn't travel around the earth in the sky. The earth rotates on its axis while it travels around the sun, only giving an appearance of the sun moving. If the earth stopped spinning, to make the sun appear to stand still, we would be in big trouble. Nothing would survive the cataclysmic results. The authors of my study bible seem to realize this story of the sun standing still is impossible, so they have proposed several possible natural explanations for the wording, except the posibility that it never happened.
*After this Joshua and his army returned to camp.
Edited
*Now that Ai has been destroyed and Gibeon has a peace treaty with the Israelites, other kings in the area were worried. Gibeon was an important acquisition. Five Kings joined forces and decided to attack the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites sent word to Joshua and begged for help. Joshua marched his whole army to the area, with the blessing of Yahweh. He took the armies of the five kings by surprise and they were defeated. As they were running away from the pursuing Israelites, Yahweh threw hailstones at them, so that more were killed by hail than by the sword. The five kingdoms were Jerusalem, Hebron, Lachish, Jarmuth, and Eglon.
*Next is a very interesting passage. On the day of this battle Joshua commanded the sun and the moon to stand still and they did! The sun supposedly stopped in the middle of the sky, which would make it about noon, and delayed going down a full day, presumably 24 hours. This had never happened before and hasn't since. That must mean Yahweh was fighting for Israel, unless it's a fairy tale. Verse 13 says this passage is written in the "Book of Jashar," an apparently lost work of the ancient Israelites.
*We all know that the sun doesn't travel around the earth in the sky. The earth rotates on its axis while it travels around the sun, only giving an appearance of the sun moving. If the earth stopped spinning, to make the sun appear to stand still, we would be in big trouble. Nothing would survive the cataclysmic results. The authors of my study bible seem to realize this story of the sun standing still is impossible, so they have proposed several possible natural explanations for the wording, except the posibility that it never happened.
*After this Joshua and his army returned to camp.
Edited
Friday, December 18, 2015
The Nativity part 2- the setting
Question: When did the birth of Jesus take place?
Answer: It depends which story you are reading. Matthew says " during the time of King Herod." This Herod died approximately 4 B.C.E., so Jesus must have been born before then. According to the text, the baby could have been as much as two years old by the time Herod found out about him. ( chapter 2:16) This would mean Jesus could have been born around 6 B.C.E. Or even a year or two earlier. The text says Joseph and Mary took the child to Egypt and stayed there till Herod died. (2:14) We are not told how long that was.
The book of Luke starts off with the pregnancy of Mary's cousin Elizabeth,"In the time of King Herod." ( chapter 1:5) Six months later, Mary is pregnant with Jesus. (1:26). So far, so good. However, when we get to Jesus's birth, we are told it was when " Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." (2:1-3)
A problem arises because the historical records clearly show that Quirinius was not governor of Syria till 6 C.E., which is also when he began the census of the province of Judea. There was no Census of the entire Roman world at that time. Augustus taxed the citizens of Rome and the provinces in different ways. This would place Jesus's birth a decade after the death of Herod, who was supposedly alive when Jesus was conceived. Matthew's story does not mention Quirinius or a census.
Question: Where does the birth story take place?
Answer: Matthew's tale begins with the birth in Bethlehem of Judea, supposedly to fulfill Micah 5:2., which is a cryptic prophecy of a future ruler of Israel, similar to David. Then Jesus is taken to Egypt, supposedly to fulfill " Out of Egypt I have called my son." (Hosea 11:1) which is is merely a reference to the Exodus. After that, Jesus's family supposedly settles in Nazareth of Galilee to fulfill "he will be called a Nazarene," which is not an Old Testament prophecy at all. Plus, there is some question about whether a person living in Nazareth was called a Nazarene. Matthew does not mention travel to Bethlehem from Galilee with or without a 9 months pregnant Mary on a donkey. There is no mention of registering for a census, a barn or stable, or a trip to Jerusalem to be consecrated.
Luke's story begins with Mary being visited by Gabriel in Nazareth of Galilee. Mary then goes to a town in the hill country of Judea, where her cousin Elizabeth lived. Interestingly, Bethlehem was a town in the hill country of Judea. Mary stays three months, then returns home. Then Joseph also goes from Nazareth to Judea to register for the census with Mary, supposedly because he was from the house of David, but the Romans would not have cared who his jewish ancestors were. After Jesus's birth he was put to bed in a manger, but the text does not say he was born in a barn or stable. At least forty days after his birth, when Mary was ceremonially clean, Jesus was taken to the temple in Jerusalem to be consecrated to the lord. After that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth in Galilee. No mention is made of any side trip to Egypt or any prophecies.
Edited.
Answer: It depends which story you are reading. Matthew says " during the time of King Herod." This Herod died approximately 4 B.C.E., so Jesus must have been born before then. According to the text, the baby could have been as much as two years old by the time Herod found out about him. ( chapter 2:16) This would mean Jesus could have been born around 6 B.C.E. Or even a year or two earlier. The text says Joseph and Mary took the child to Egypt and stayed there till Herod died. (2:14) We are not told how long that was.
The book of Luke starts off with the pregnancy of Mary's cousin Elizabeth,"In the time of King Herod." ( chapter 1:5) Six months later, Mary is pregnant with Jesus. (1:26). So far, so good. However, when we get to Jesus's birth, we are told it was when " Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." (2:1-3)
A problem arises because the historical records clearly show that Quirinius was not governor of Syria till 6 C.E., which is also when he began the census of the province of Judea. There was no Census of the entire Roman world at that time. Augustus taxed the citizens of Rome and the provinces in different ways. This would place Jesus's birth a decade after the death of Herod, who was supposedly alive when Jesus was conceived. Matthew's story does not mention Quirinius or a census.
Question: Where does the birth story take place?
Answer: Matthew's tale begins with the birth in Bethlehem of Judea, supposedly to fulfill Micah 5:2., which is a cryptic prophecy of a future ruler of Israel, similar to David. Then Jesus is taken to Egypt, supposedly to fulfill " Out of Egypt I have called my son." (Hosea 11:1) which is is merely a reference to the Exodus. After that, Jesus's family supposedly settles in Nazareth of Galilee to fulfill "he will be called a Nazarene," which is not an Old Testament prophecy at all. Plus, there is some question about whether a person living in Nazareth was called a Nazarene. Matthew does not mention travel to Bethlehem from Galilee with or without a 9 months pregnant Mary on a donkey. There is no mention of registering for a census, a barn or stable, or a trip to Jerusalem to be consecrated.
Luke's story begins with Mary being visited by Gabriel in Nazareth of Galilee. Mary then goes to a town in the hill country of Judea, where her cousin Elizabeth lived. Interestingly, Bethlehem was a town in the hill country of Judea. Mary stays three months, then returns home. Then Joseph also goes from Nazareth to Judea to register for the census with Mary, supposedly because he was from the house of David, but the Romans would not have cared who his jewish ancestors were. After Jesus's birth he was put to bed in a manger, but the text does not say he was born in a barn or stable. At least forty days after his birth, when Mary was ceremonially clean, Jesus was taken to the temple in Jerusalem to be consecrated to the lord. After that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth in Galilee. No mention is made of any side trip to Egypt or any prophecies.
Edited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)