We are now at chapter nine. The year went by and it is now the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar. The Jews assembled in all the cities waiting to attack those who would try to destroy them. Many of the non Jews were afraid of them. The nobles and officials decide to side with the Jews because Mordecai had become very powerful and influential. The Jews used swords to kill their enemies, destroying five hundred men in the citadel of Susa alone. They also killed Haman's ten sons, but they did not lay hands on the plunder. This is again a reference to the time Saul was to completely destroy the Agagites and not take plunder. Saul broke the rules. Mordecai, his supposed descendent didn't. It was redemption.
The king heard about the destruction in Susa and the death of Haman's sons. He asked Esther if there was anything else she wanted. Esther requested that the Jews in Susa be allowed to continue protecting themselves the next day as well. She also wanted Haman's sons to be hung on gallows. The king agreed. The next day, the fourteenth of Adar, three hundred more men were killed by the Jews in Susa. But the plunder was not taken.
On the fifteenth of Adar, the Jews rested "and made it a day of feasting and joy." The author says this is why rural Jews celebrate this event on the fourteenth of Adar and the Jews of Susa presumably celebrate on the fifteenth. It became day of joy and feasting and for giving presents to each other. Mordecai sent letters throughout the empire giving instructions about how in the future they were to celebrate those days that the Jews were saved from their enemies. The Jews agreed that they and their descendents would uphold this celebration the same two days every year. It was called Purim, because Haman had cast lots to find out what day would be good for the Jews destruction. A lot was called the "pur." That is where the word Purim is supposed to have come from.
We are now at chapter ten. King Xerxes required tribute from his entire empire, "to its distant shores," which would have included Jerusalem, Israel, and Palestine. Every thing he did, and the full account of Mordecai's greatness, are supposed to have been written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia. Too bad we don't have those records. We do have Herodotus' account of Xerxes' exploits and they do not contain any information about Mordecai or Esther. Nothing outside the bible does. Mordecai the Jew was supposedly second in command to Xerxes and held in high esteem by all the Jews. That's a pretty big deal, if it is true. However, that suspiciously similar to Joseph's relationship to Pharaoh in the book of Genesis. Plus, Neither Mordecai or Esther are mentioned anywhere else in the bible.
This book was written by an unknown author. It does not mention any other Old Testament characters, places, or events. It does not mention Yahweh, or any of his commandments. It does not mention any uniquely Jewish religious or cultural practises or beliefs. It does not claim to be the inspired word of a god. It seems to merely serve as an explanation for the celebration of Purim. It is my considered opinion that the celebration had some other less exalted explanation and this story was derived to give the holiday legitimacy. I could be wrong about that. However, the holiday seems to be used as a good reason to have a party with a lot of alcohol.
Herodotus tells us that Xerxes wife Amestris (Vashti?), when she was old, "made return for her her own life to the god who is said to be beneath the earth by burying twice seven children of Persians who were men of renown." In other words, she tried to get immortality by sacrificing fourteen children. Nice lady. Xerxes was assassinated about 465 BCE, after reigning about 21 years.
Showing posts with label Jews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jews. Show all posts
Friday, October 4, 2019
Esther part eleven
We are now at chapter seven. The king and Haman are dining with Esther and the king again asks Esther what he can do for her. With a great deal of dignity, Esther asks the king to spare her people from annihilation. She adds that she wouldn't have bothered him if they were just be sold into slavery. The king wanted to know who would dare to do such a thing and the queen said, "The adversary and enemy is this vile Haman." I don't know if it is intentional, but "the adversary" has been used as a term for the devil.
Haman was naturally terrified. The king was enraged and went out into the garden, probably to gain control of his temper. Haman stayed behind to beg Esther for his life. He knew that the king was furious enough to execute him. Just as Haman was dramatically falling on Esther in humility, the king walked back in. He immediately suspected Haman of trying to molest her. Haman was held prisoner and a eunuch in attendance informed the king of the gallows Haman had built for Mordecai. The king order Haman to be hung on it.
We are now at chapter eight. Xerxes gave Esther all Haman's property. She told the king Mordecai was her relative and the king gave Mordecai the signet ring that Haman had once worn. Esther put Mordecai in charge of Haman's estate. She also begged the king with many tears to rescind Haman's plan to execute the Jews. The king said another decree could be written in behalf of the Jews, in the king's name and sealed with his signet ring. However, the previous decree could not be rescinded because it too was sealed by the king's signet ring, and "a document written in the king's name and sealed with his ring, could not be revoked. "
It is now the twenty third day of the month of Sivan, the third month of the year. Mordecai comes up with a new document that will counteract the effects of the old. He has it translated into all the necessary languages, he seals it with the king's ring and sends copies out to all parts of the empire by special couriers. These couriers may have used the famous Persian Royal Road.
What did the king's (Mordecai's) new edict say? It gave the Jews the right to assemble, to protect themselves, and to kill anyone who might try to kill them. They were also allowed to plunder the property of their enemies. The day appointed for all this was the same day that Haman had declared to be when the Jews should be attacked, the 13th day of the twelfth month. Copies of this edict were made known throughout the land. Everyone was to know that the Jews would be ready to face their attackers, with the king's permission. The city of Susa was also informed and greatly rejoiced. There must have been a lot of Jews living there. Mordecai now had royal robes and a large crown. There was a lot of feasting and celebrating throughout the provinces. Some non Jews decided it was a good time to become Jewish.
Till next time.
Haman was naturally terrified. The king was enraged and went out into the garden, probably to gain control of his temper. Haman stayed behind to beg Esther for his life. He knew that the king was furious enough to execute him. Just as Haman was dramatically falling on Esther in humility, the king walked back in. He immediately suspected Haman of trying to molest her. Haman was held prisoner and a eunuch in attendance informed the king of the gallows Haman had built for Mordecai. The king order Haman to be hung on it.
We are now at chapter eight. Xerxes gave Esther all Haman's property. She told the king Mordecai was her relative and the king gave Mordecai the signet ring that Haman had once worn. Esther put Mordecai in charge of Haman's estate. She also begged the king with many tears to rescind Haman's plan to execute the Jews. The king said another decree could be written in behalf of the Jews, in the king's name and sealed with his signet ring. However, the previous decree could not be rescinded because it too was sealed by the king's signet ring, and "a document written in the king's name and sealed with his ring, could not be revoked. "
It is now the twenty third day of the month of Sivan, the third month of the year. Mordecai comes up with a new document that will counteract the effects of the old. He has it translated into all the necessary languages, he seals it with the king's ring and sends copies out to all parts of the empire by special couriers. These couriers may have used the famous Persian Royal Road.
What did the king's (Mordecai's) new edict say? It gave the Jews the right to assemble, to protect themselves, and to kill anyone who might try to kill them. They were also allowed to plunder the property of their enemies. The day appointed for all this was the same day that Haman had declared to be when the Jews should be attacked, the 13th day of the twelfth month. Copies of this edict were made known throughout the land. Everyone was to know that the Jews would be ready to face their attackers, with the king's permission. The city of Susa was also informed and greatly rejoiced. There must have been a lot of Jews living there. Mordecai now had royal robes and a large crown. There was a lot of feasting and celebrating throughout the provinces. Some non Jews decided it was a good time to become Jewish.
Till next time.
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Esther part nine
We are at the end of chapter three. The edict to destroy the Jews on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, of the twelfth year if Xerxes reign, has been sent out. "The king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Susa was bewildered."
When Mordecai found out about the edict, he went into mourning. He tore his clothes, wore sackcloth and ashes, and wailed loudly. Jews throughout the empire did the same thing, including fasting. What was this supposed to accomplish? 1 Kings 21:27-28, shows us an example of king Ahab doing this to show humility before god, so that god will change his mind about destroying him. In Genesis 37:34, Jacob mourns his son while in sackcloth. My commentary suggests the author of Esther may have been familiar with Joel 2:12-17, Which suggests that mourning behavior can cause god to relent from sending calamity. There are also many instances of fasting, often as a sign if repentence.
While Mordecai was thus attired, he was not allowed to enter through the king's gate. Esther heard about Mordecai through her maids and eunuchs. She sent him some other clothes, but he would not wear them. Esther sent one of her eunuchs out to find out what the problem was. Mordecai told the eunuch the whole story and gave him a copy of the edict. The eunuch went back to Esther and reported what Mordecai had told him, along with a request for Esther to go into the king's presence and plead for the lives of her people.
Esther sent the eunuch back to Mordecai with a message. Everyone knew that to go into the presence of the king without being summoned was a risky enterprise. They could be put to death, unless the king extended his gold scepter. Plus, Esther had not been called to go to the king for a month. Mordecai sent a message back to Esther. "Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to this royal position for such a time as this?" This is the main theme of the whole story.
God is not mentioned at all, but Mordecai expects salvation for at least some of the Jews, if not for him and Esther. From whence cometh this salvation? Is hope in this salvation justified? Even today, after over 2,5000 years, there is a firm belief that there will always be a remnant of the Jewish god's chosen people on earth. Many Christians consider themselves part of that category.
Note: My bible commentary says that the other "place" where salvation arrives from may be a play on words, one of the names of god being "the place."
Next, Esther sends her message back to Mordecai. She wants him to gather up all the Jews in Susa and have them conduct a fast on her behalf, for three days and three nights. (Hmmm. That's a familiar time span.) Esther and her maids will also fast. After that she will go take her chances with the king. "Mordecai went away and carried out all of Esther's instructions."
Notice the contrast between the fasting and acts of humility and service of Esther and Mordecai and the extravagance and feasting of the royal household.
When Mordecai found out about the edict, he went into mourning. He tore his clothes, wore sackcloth and ashes, and wailed loudly. Jews throughout the empire did the same thing, including fasting. What was this supposed to accomplish? 1 Kings 21:27-28, shows us an example of king Ahab doing this to show humility before god, so that god will change his mind about destroying him. In Genesis 37:34, Jacob mourns his son while in sackcloth. My commentary suggests the author of Esther may have been familiar with Joel 2:12-17, Which suggests that mourning behavior can cause god to relent from sending calamity. There are also many instances of fasting, often as a sign if repentence.
While Mordecai was thus attired, he was not allowed to enter through the king's gate. Esther heard about Mordecai through her maids and eunuchs. She sent him some other clothes, but he would not wear them. Esther sent one of her eunuchs out to find out what the problem was. Mordecai told the eunuch the whole story and gave him a copy of the edict. The eunuch went back to Esther and reported what Mordecai had told him, along with a request for Esther to go into the king's presence and plead for the lives of her people.
Esther sent the eunuch back to Mordecai with a message. Everyone knew that to go into the presence of the king without being summoned was a risky enterprise. They could be put to death, unless the king extended his gold scepter. Plus, Esther had not been called to go to the king for a month. Mordecai sent a message back to Esther. "Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to this royal position for such a time as this?" This is the main theme of the whole story.
God is not mentioned at all, but Mordecai expects salvation for at least some of the Jews, if not for him and Esther. From whence cometh this salvation? Is hope in this salvation justified? Even today, after over 2,5000 years, there is a firm belief that there will always be a remnant of the Jewish god's chosen people on earth. Many Christians consider themselves part of that category.
Note: My bible commentary says that the other "place" where salvation arrives from may be a play on words, one of the names of god being "the place."
Next, Esther sends her message back to Mordecai. She wants him to gather up all the Jews in Susa and have them conduct a fast on her behalf, for three days and three nights. (Hmmm. That's a familiar time span.) Esther and her maids will also fast. After that she will go take her chances with the king. "Mordecai went away and carried out all of Esther's instructions."
Notice the contrast between the fasting and acts of humility and service of Esther and Mordecai and the extravagance and feasting of the royal household.
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Esther and Herodotus part eight
We are at chapter three, verse 2. It is about the the beginning of the twelfth year of Xerxes' reign, a little more than four years after he supposedly made Esther Queen. Haman has been exalted by the king, who has commanded that all the royal officials at the king's gate kneel down to Haman. Mordecai dies not kneel down or pay Haman honor. Why? Who knows. Maybe because he's supposed to be an Agagite, an hereditary enemy of the Israelites. However, though it makes for a good story, it's highly unlikely that was actually the case. Five hundred years had passed since the alleged enmity between the two tribes. Even if it actually happened, what are the chances that level of disdain would travel that far through the centuries, maintaining its fervor?
The royal officials wanted to know why Mordecai would not comply. He did not answer or change his behavior. The officials told Haman to see what he would do about it, as well as revealing to Haman that Mordecai was a Jew. Haman was hopping mad. When he found out who Mordecai's people were, he decided to kill the lot of them throughout the whole kingdom.
It was the first month (Nisan) of the twelfth year of Xerxes's reign. Haman cast lots to see when would be a good time to kill all the Jews. The lot fell on the twelfth month, the last month (Adar) of the year. Haman went to Xerxes and told him "there is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples. In all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey the king's laws. It is not in the king's interest to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will put ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business.
Haman is offering to pay for the extermination of the Jews if the king will sign off on it. He doesn't appear to tell the king who he is going to exterminate, though. The king gives Haman his royal ring, which basically gives him the power to do almost anything. Xerxes also tells him to forget about the money, Haman is allowed to do whatever he wants to the people. If this story was true, Xerxes was an idiot. He gave Haman carte blanche to destroy a bunch of people in his kingdom, without even asking any questions?!!
On the thirteenth day of the first month, Haman had the royal scribed write out his orders in the various languages of the empire and had them sent out by couriers to all the king's provinces. The orders were written in the name of Xerxes and sealed with his ring. They said that "all the Jews, young and old, women and children," were to be killed on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Permission was also given to plunder the goods of the Jews. Extra copies of the edict were issued and sent out so that all the non-official peoples of every tribe would also be ready to attack the Jews.
It probably wasn't a coincidence that the day the author says this declaration was written, the thirteenth of Nisan, was the day before the Fast of the first born and two days before the Jewish Passover week. Another interesting coincidence is that in Persia/Iran, the thirteenth day of the first month was an annual celebration called Sizdeh Be-dar. This day is traditionally around the American date of April first or second and has been a day to play pranks, since before the time our story takes place! The Jews were also to be killed on the thirteen day of the last month. Thirteen certainly looked like an unlucky number for them.
Till next time.
The royal officials wanted to know why Mordecai would not comply. He did not answer or change his behavior. The officials told Haman to see what he would do about it, as well as revealing to Haman that Mordecai was a Jew. Haman was hopping mad. When he found out who Mordecai's people were, he decided to kill the lot of them throughout the whole kingdom.
It was the first month (Nisan) of the twelfth year of Xerxes's reign. Haman cast lots to see when would be a good time to kill all the Jews. The lot fell on the twelfth month, the last month (Adar) of the year. Haman went to Xerxes and told him "there is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples. In all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey the king's laws. It is not in the king's interest to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will put ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business.
Haman is offering to pay for the extermination of the Jews if the king will sign off on it. He doesn't appear to tell the king who he is going to exterminate, though. The king gives Haman his royal ring, which basically gives him the power to do almost anything. Xerxes also tells him to forget about the money, Haman is allowed to do whatever he wants to the people. If this story was true, Xerxes was an idiot. He gave Haman carte blanche to destroy a bunch of people in his kingdom, without even asking any questions?!!
On the thirteenth day of the first month, Haman had the royal scribed write out his orders in the various languages of the empire and had them sent out by couriers to all the king's provinces. The orders were written in the name of Xerxes and sealed with his ring. They said that "all the Jews, young and old, women and children," were to be killed on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Permission was also given to plunder the goods of the Jews. Extra copies of the edict were issued and sent out so that all the non-official peoples of every tribe would also be ready to attack the Jews.
It probably wasn't a coincidence that the day the author says this declaration was written, the thirteenth of Nisan, was the day before the Fast of the first born and two days before the Jewish Passover week. Another interesting coincidence is that in Persia/Iran, the thirteenth day of the first month was an annual celebration called Sizdeh Be-dar. This day is traditionally around the American date of April first or second and has been a day to play pranks, since before the time our story takes place! The Jews were also to be killed on the thirteen day of the last month. Thirteen certainly looked like an unlucky number for them.
Till next time.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
1 Thessalonians wrap up
What did we learn? 1 Thessalonians is probably the oldest book of the New Testament and the first available letter of Paul. There is not much scholarly dispute that it is written by Paul, possibly in the early 50's CE. It is written to the church in Thessaloniki, Greece, which apparently was started by Paul, Silas, and Timothy. They had left the area and Paul was not able to go back for some time. He became anxious about whether the church was keeping the faith, and sent Timothy to check up on them. Timothy came back to Paul with a positive report. In spite of persecution, they were still active believers. It is said that they originally started out as idol worshippers, which would make them gentiles. Paul considered their success his crown of glory.
The author does not claim this letter is inspired or the word of god. There is no mention of specific Old Testament people, places, or events, in this letter. There are no Old Testament quotes. The only New testament people mentioned are Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Jesus. The New Testament places mentioned are Judea, Macedonia, Achaia, and Philippi. There are no New Testament events mentioned except travel and/or persecution in the mentioned areas. The specific persecutions mentioned were being insulted, forbidden from preaching the gospel to gentiles, and being run out of town.
There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, or teachings. There is no mention of his trial, crucifixion or burial. He is in heaven, having been raised from the dead. He will come back to earth. Satan is mentioned as stopping Paul from doing what he wants. He is also called the tempter who might have led the Thessalonians astray.
In this letter, the author accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, just as they killed the prophets. In the gospels we see that the Romans were the actual executioners of Jesus. The only way we see Jews killing anyone in the New Testament is by stoning. They never seemed to get in trouble with the authorities for that. Which makes me wonder, if they could do that, why didn't they stone Jesus? Also, it is very difficult to find any prophets who were killed by the Jews anywhere in the bible. In the New Testament, John the baptist might count, maybe Stephen also. In 1 Kings 19:10, Elijah tells god that his (unnamed) prophets have been put to death with the sword. That's the only mention I could find in the Old Testament.
Paul also mentions that he gave the Thessalonians instructions, by the authority of Jesus, on how to live as children of god. These instructions included avoiding certain sexual behaviors which sound like he could be obliquely referring to homosexuality. He does encourage self control and not taking advantage of others, which I guess is good in this oddly worded passage. They are also told to mind their own business and work with their hands. Significantly, in my mind, they aren't told to spread the gospel. How often are any people in the NT, besides the apostles, told to spread the gospel? I'm having trouble thinking of any.
Faithfulness and obedience to Paul's message is stressed in this letter. The message is one of eternal life for believers, when Jesus comes back. On a surprise date, the archangel will announce Jesus and god's trumpet will sound. The dead in christ will literally rise up into the air, then the living believers will follow and meet them in the clouds. Believers should be expecting this to happen in their lifetime so they will be ready. Unbelievers will be caught unaware. Believers don't need to grieve the death of other beloved believers, they will see them again. Not like non believers, they have no hope. (Erg.)
The author does not claim this letter is inspired or the word of god. There is no mention of specific Old Testament people, places, or events, in this letter. There are no Old Testament quotes. The only New testament people mentioned are Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Jesus. The New Testament places mentioned are Judea, Macedonia, Achaia, and Philippi. There are no New Testament events mentioned except travel and/or persecution in the mentioned areas. The specific persecutions mentioned were being insulted, forbidden from preaching the gospel to gentiles, and being run out of town.
There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, or teachings. There is no mention of his trial, crucifixion or burial. He is in heaven, having been raised from the dead. He will come back to earth. Satan is mentioned as stopping Paul from doing what he wants. He is also called the tempter who might have led the Thessalonians astray.
In this letter, the author accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, just as they killed the prophets. In the gospels we see that the Romans were the actual executioners of Jesus. The only way we see Jews killing anyone in the New Testament is by stoning. They never seemed to get in trouble with the authorities for that. Which makes me wonder, if they could do that, why didn't they stone Jesus? Also, it is very difficult to find any prophets who were killed by the Jews anywhere in the bible. In the New Testament, John the baptist might count, maybe Stephen also. In 1 Kings 19:10, Elijah tells god that his (unnamed) prophets have been put to death with the sword. That's the only mention I could find in the Old Testament.
Paul also mentions that he gave the Thessalonians instructions, by the authority of Jesus, on how to live as children of god. These instructions included avoiding certain sexual behaviors which sound like he could be obliquely referring to homosexuality. He does encourage self control and not taking advantage of others, which I guess is good in this oddly worded passage. They are also told to mind their own business and work with their hands. Significantly, in my mind, they aren't told to spread the gospel. How often are any people in the NT, besides the apostles, told to spread the gospel? I'm having trouble thinking of any.
Faithfulness and obedience to Paul's message is stressed in this letter. The message is one of eternal life for believers, when Jesus comes back. On a surprise date, the archangel will announce Jesus and god's trumpet will sound. The dead in christ will literally rise up into the air, then the living believers will follow and meet them in the clouds. Believers should be expecting this to happen in their lifetime so they will be ready. Unbelievers will be caught unaware. Believers don't need to grieve the death of other beloved believers, they will see them again. Not like non believers, they have no hope. (Erg.)
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
1 Thessalonians part two
We are at chapter two verse one. Paul, Silas, and Timothy had previously visited Thessaloniki. They thought their visit was a success, not like in Philippi, where they experienced non specific suffering and had been insulted. With god's help they dared to share the gospel with the Thessalonians, in spite of strong opposition. They weren't trying to trick the Thessalonians and their motives were pure, according to them. They spoke "as men approved by god," according to them. And everyone had to take their word for it. They claim to be trying to please god not men, but how in the world could anyone know for sure if they were telling the truth? Plus, why did god need them to spread the message? Why didn't he just tell the people himself? Why does god rely on an imperfect delivery system to get his word out? Think of all the people in the world who never heard the gospel. Are they all doomed? If they are not, then why does the message need spreading?
The author goes on to say they didn't use flattery, cover up greed, or look for praise. God is their witness. Some witness, he's mute. The three of them worked hard for their own support and did not expect anything from the Thessalonians. They shared what they had, as well as preached the gospel. The sharing part is commendable. The Thessalonians (and the mute god) were witnesses of how holy, righteous and blameless the three were among the believers. Are they supposed to be tooting their own horn? Also, we don't have the Thessalonians' side of the story. Plus, how did they treat nonbelievers?
The three treated the Thessalonians like a father treats his own children. Since they were actually adults, I wonder how they felt about that. They urged the Thessalonians to live lives worthy of god, whose spokesmen they were. What proof did the Thessalonians have besides their say so? The three were so pleased when their message was received as the word of god and not the word of men. Of course they were. The believers in Thessaloniki then became imitators of the christ believing churches in Judea. Then the believers in Thessaloniki began to experience the same persecution from their own countrymen that the believers in Judea received from the Jews. How bad was this persecution? Did they hurt them, or just ridicule them? We are not told.
Those Jews who treated believers in Judea badly are said to be the people who "killed the lord Jesus and the prophets" and also drove the three of them out. This is confusing to me, because weren't those believers also Jews? And what do the prophets have to do with it? Weren't the prophets also Jews? Also, this unfortunate passage has been used to support antisemitism throughout the ages, and it's not done being ugly. The author says these same Jews "displease god and are hostile to all men." They deliberately try to keep Paul, Timothy and Silas from speaking to the gentiles so they can be saved. In other words, those Jews don't want salvation for the non Jews. "In this way they heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of god has come upon them at last." Wow. So kind, loving, and christ like of Paul.
The Thessalonians had to take the author's word for all this, without proof. What Judean Jews were going to travel across the Mediterranean to Greece to set the record straight? They could basically spin any story they wanted, who would be the wiser?
Till next time.
The author goes on to say they didn't use flattery, cover up greed, or look for praise. God is their witness. Some witness, he's mute. The three of them worked hard for their own support and did not expect anything from the Thessalonians. They shared what they had, as well as preached the gospel. The sharing part is commendable. The Thessalonians (and the mute god) were witnesses of how holy, righteous and blameless the three were among the believers. Are they supposed to be tooting their own horn? Also, we don't have the Thessalonians' side of the story. Plus, how did they treat nonbelievers?
The three treated the Thessalonians like a father treats his own children. Since they were actually adults, I wonder how they felt about that. They urged the Thessalonians to live lives worthy of god, whose spokesmen they were. What proof did the Thessalonians have besides their say so? The three were so pleased when their message was received as the word of god and not the word of men. Of course they were. The believers in Thessaloniki then became imitators of the christ believing churches in Judea. Then the believers in Thessaloniki began to experience the same persecution from their own countrymen that the believers in Judea received from the Jews. How bad was this persecution? Did they hurt them, or just ridicule them? We are not told.
Those Jews who treated believers in Judea badly are said to be the people who "killed the lord Jesus and the prophets" and also drove the three of them out. This is confusing to me, because weren't those believers also Jews? And what do the prophets have to do with it? Weren't the prophets also Jews? Also, this unfortunate passage has been used to support antisemitism throughout the ages, and it's not done being ugly. The author says these same Jews "displease god and are hostile to all men." They deliberately try to keep Paul, Timothy and Silas from speaking to the gentiles so they can be saved. In other words, those Jews don't want salvation for the non Jews. "In this way they heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of god has come upon them at last." Wow. So kind, loving, and christ like of Paul.
The Thessalonians had to take the author's word for all this, without proof. What Judean Jews were going to travel across the Mediterranean to Greece to set the record straight? They could basically spin any story they wanted, who would be the wiser?
Till next time.
Saturday, May 18, 2019
Hebrews wrap up
The book of Hebrews, as its name implies, is written exclusively for Hebrew believers in Jesus. It was written at an unknown time, around the first two centuries of the christian era, by an unknown author, who does not claim to be inspired or to be writing the word of god. Hebrews defines the gospel as the teaching that there is still "god's sabbath rest", or an afterlife to come, for the believing Jews. In the old covenant, god's rest had to do with rest or freedom from from dealing with their enemies in the land God gave the Hebrews. When this book was written, there probably was still no rest from dealing with enemies in the land of the Hebrews, even after centuries of living under the old covenant. A new interpretation is being made of "god's rest," along with everything else associated with the old covenant.
This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.
The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.
The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.
The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot, he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.
No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.
I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.
This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.
The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.
The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.
The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot, he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.
No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.
I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.
Friday, April 19, 2019
Hebrews part six
We are now at the beginning of Hebrews chapter four. Of course the original writings had no chapters and verses, so the text continues on about the subject of "god's rest." The author claims that the original promise of entering god's rest, to the Jews who didn't disobey, still stands. He conveniently passes over the general knowledge that the original promise was not speaking of some spiritual paradise. Could it be because, at the time the book was written, the majority of Jews were displaced from Canaan and needed to reinvent a definition of god's rest, so that it could still be true?
The message of god's rest (for the faithful Jews) is practically defined as the gospel message in verse 4:2! Those Old Testament Jews from Egypt didn't get anything out of the message because they didn't have faith! The people the author is writing to believe the message, so they will get to enter god's rest. All this has been prearranged since the creation. Didn't it say in Genesis that god rested on the seventh day? Some people get to enter god's rest, but not those disobedient people of old. That's why god spoke through David and told the people not to harden their hearts if they heard his voice. I don't know. Is it a good idea to listen to disembodied voices? How would you know if they were telling the truth?
The author of Hebrews goes on to say Joshua didn't give them rest , because god spoke about "the rest" again later, presumably in the Psalm previously referred to in chapter three. However, Joshua 21:40 says, The lord gave them (the Israelites) "rest" on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. we go to Joshua 22:4, we see that three tribes got the "rest" god promised. Further on, in Joshua 23:1, we see the Israelites given "rest" from their enemies. What was the originally promised rest? Rest from enemies! See Deuteronomy 12:8-9, 25:19. However, in 4:10, the author of Hebrews equates it with rest from life's labor, just as god rested after working on creation.
The readers of Hebrews are told to make every effort to enter the rest through obedience. Obedience to who or what? Well, the next sentence says "the word of god is living and active. Sharper than any two edged sword... It judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Is this "word of god" the scriptures of the Old Testament? Or is it what the believers "hear" god saying to them?
In verse 14, we are back to reading about Jesus as a great high priest who has been through the heavens. It is spelled out here: Jesus is the son of god. Not only that, he can sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every way we are, but without sin. That means we can approach his throne and receive mercy. This is an allusion to literal lawbreakers having to stand before a king and receive his judgement, as was common in those days.
We now move into Hebrews chapter five. There we read about how high priests are selected and appointed to represent the people (Jews) in matters related to god. They offer sacrifices for sins and deal "gently" with the ignorant an those going astray. I bet. The priest isn't perfect, that's why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as those of the people (Jews). High priests are called by god, just like Aaron was, they don't take the honor upon themselves. Hah! Isn't that just what they do, since there are no gods actually calling people?
Jesus also didn't take the high priesthood on himself. Didn't god say to him, "You are my son, today I have become your father." Well, technically, it was written by author of Psalm 2:7, who was writing about god installing him as king. There is no reason to believe a god ever said it, or that Jesus was the one said god was speaking to. Also, how does being told you are god's son make you the great high priest? The author of Hebrews has that covered. In another place (Psalm 110:4), god said, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." That Psalm is labelled as a Psalm of David and reads like a promise from a god to a warrior king. What does it have to do with Jesus? Nothing, as far as I can see, except whatever the author of Hebrews finds in his imagination. A pinch of one Psalm and a dash of another makes a high priest named Jesus.
The message of god's rest (for the faithful Jews) is practically defined as the gospel message in verse 4:2! Those Old Testament Jews from Egypt didn't get anything out of the message because they didn't have faith! The people the author is writing to believe the message, so they will get to enter god's rest. All this has been prearranged since the creation. Didn't it say in Genesis that god rested on the seventh day? Some people get to enter god's rest, but not those disobedient people of old. That's why god spoke through David and told the people not to harden their hearts if they heard his voice. I don't know. Is it a good idea to listen to disembodied voices? How would you know if they were telling the truth?
The author of Hebrews goes on to say Joshua didn't give them rest , because god spoke about "the rest" again later, presumably in the Psalm previously referred to in chapter three. However, Joshua 21:40 says, The lord gave them (the Israelites) "rest" on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. we go to Joshua 22:4, we see that three tribes got the "rest" god promised. Further on, in Joshua 23:1, we see the Israelites given "rest" from their enemies. What was the originally promised rest? Rest from enemies! See Deuteronomy 12:8-9, 25:19. However, in 4:10, the author of Hebrews equates it with rest from life's labor, just as god rested after working on creation.
The readers of Hebrews are told to make every effort to enter the rest through obedience. Obedience to who or what? Well, the next sentence says "the word of god is living and active. Sharper than any two edged sword... It judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Is this "word of god" the scriptures of the Old Testament? Or is it what the believers "hear" god saying to them?
In verse 14, we are back to reading about Jesus as a great high priest who has been through the heavens. It is spelled out here: Jesus is the son of god. Not only that, he can sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every way we are, but without sin. That means we can approach his throne and receive mercy. This is an allusion to literal lawbreakers having to stand before a king and receive his judgement, as was common in those days.
We now move into Hebrews chapter five. There we read about how high priests are selected and appointed to represent the people (Jews) in matters related to god. They offer sacrifices for sins and deal "gently" with the ignorant an those going astray. I bet. The priest isn't perfect, that's why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as those of the people (Jews). High priests are called by god, just like Aaron was, they don't take the honor upon themselves. Hah! Isn't that just what they do, since there are no gods actually calling people?
Jesus also didn't take the high priesthood on himself. Didn't god say to him, "You are my son, today I have become your father." Well, technically, it was written by author of Psalm 2:7, who was writing about god installing him as king. There is no reason to believe a god ever said it, or that Jesus was the one said god was speaking to. Also, how does being told you are god's son make you the great high priest? The author of Hebrews has that covered. In another place (Psalm 110:4), god said, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." That Psalm is labelled as a Psalm of David and reads like a promise from a god to a warrior king. What does it have to do with Jesus? Nothing, as far as I can see, except whatever the author of Hebrews finds in his imagination. A pinch of one Psalm and a dash of another makes a high priest named Jesus.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Hebrews part five
We are at Hebrews 2:14. The author has been putting old testament words into Jesus's mouth, having him declare god has given him children , which one can only assume are supposed to be Jesus's followers. Next follows more of the author's peculiar logic: "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-that is the devil-and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." So, it is the devil who holds the power of death and not god? Who gave him that power? How in the world does one man's death destroy the devil (who doesn't even exist) by dying? How is anyone freed from the fear of death? We all still die. The prospect of death is a horror which we spend our lives pretending will never happen to us. Even those who are religious would rather live than die, in spite of what they preach.
Verse 16 goes on to say that Jesus's death does not help the angels but Abraham's descendants, (the Jews). So, he had to be made like his brothers (the Jews) in every way. News flash: it does not sound like this letter was written by Paul who insisted that the Gospel was about the gentiles also having salvation, maybe even being favored as god's children above the Jews! Jesus is said to have been human so that he could become a high priest who could make atonement for the sins of the people (the Jews).
Because Jesus suffered when he was tempted (Tell us again when that was?) he is able to help those who are being tempted. How? Seriously, what exactly does Jesus do to help someone who is being tempted? And what are these temptations? Do they have anything to do with breaking the hundreds of arbitrary rules and regulations of Judaism that their god gave them through Moses?
We move into chapter three. The brothers (probably Jews) who share in the heavenly calling (what's that?) are to fix their thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest. Jesus is a guy who wears many hats. So far he is the son of god; he speaks through the Old Testament; he is the son of man- a human; he is a brother to the children of god; he is a devil/ death destroyer; he is an apostle (?); and a high priest. (The apostle one stumps me. Maybe we will hear more about it later. Perhaps it means he was an apostle to the Jews as Paul considered himself an apostle to the gentiles.)
Next, we are told Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses. I bet that was shocking to Jewish sensibilities. God is the builder of everything, Moses was his faithful servant. The christ is the faithful son over god's house. "We" (the Hebrews/Jews) are god's house....if we hold on to courage and hope. Now I am even more thinking this must have been written to Jewish believers after the fall of Jerusalem, definitely not gentiles.
The next passage, verses 7-11 is another quote from the old testament, Psalm 95:7-11. The author of Hebrews tells us that this time it is the "holy spirit" talking. How can he tell the difference between the words of the holy spirit, god, and Jesus? If we read through the Psalm it appears to be speaking words that mention the lord/god in the third person. So, if the words are divine, who else could be saying them? The holy spirit! Duh.
The passage speaks of Jews hearing Jesus's voice and not hardening their hearts like they did in the rebellious Mosaic desert wanderings that lasted forty years. The brothers (jews) are not to have sinful unbelieving hearts. They must hold firmly onto confidence to the end. All those who Moses led out into the desert from Egypt were the ones who rebelled against what they heard. Moses was angry with them and they ended up dying in the desert because god swore they would never enter his rest as a result of their unbelief. "His rest" is a metaphor for the land of Canaan/ the promised land, which the author of Hebrews uses as a metaphor for an afterlife in some kind of paradise. We will see that in chapter four.
Till next time.
Verse 16 goes on to say that Jesus's death does not help the angels but Abraham's descendants, (the Jews). So, he had to be made like his brothers (the Jews) in every way. News flash: it does not sound like this letter was written by Paul who insisted that the Gospel was about the gentiles also having salvation, maybe even being favored as god's children above the Jews! Jesus is said to have been human so that he could become a high priest who could make atonement for the sins of the people (the Jews).
Because Jesus suffered when he was tempted (Tell us again when that was?) he is able to help those who are being tempted. How? Seriously, what exactly does Jesus do to help someone who is being tempted? And what are these temptations? Do they have anything to do with breaking the hundreds of arbitrary rules and regulations of Judaism that their god gave them through Moses?
We move into chapter three. The brothers (probably Jews) who share in the heavenly calling (what's that?) are to fix their thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest. Jesus is a guy who wears many hats. So far he is the son of god; he speaks through the Old Testament; he is the son of man- a human; he is a brother to the children of god; he is a devil/ death destroyer; he is an apostle (?); and a high priest. (The apostle one stumps me. Maybe we will hear more about it later. Perhaps it means he was an apostle to the Jews as Paul considered himself an apostle to the gentiles.)
Next, we are told Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses. I bet that was shocking to Jewish sensibilities. God is the builder of everything, Moses was his faithful servant. The christ is the faithful son over god's house. "We" (the Hebrews/Jews) are god's house....if we hold on to courage and hope. Now I am even more thinking this must have been written to Jewish believers after the fall of Jerusalem, definitely not gentiles.
The next passage, verses 7-11 is another quote from the old testament, Psalm 95:7-11. The author of Hebrews tells us that this time it is the "holy spirit" talking. How can he tell the difference between the words of the holy spirit, god, and Jesus? If we read through the Psalm it appears to be speaking words that mention the lord/god in the third person. So, if the words are divine, who else could be saying them? The holy spirit! Duh.
The passage speaks of Jews hearing Jesus's voice and not hardening their hearts like they did in the rebellious Mosaic desert wanderings that lasted forty years. The brothers (jews) are not to have sinful unbelieving hearts. They must hold firmly onto confidence to the end. All those who Moses led out into the desert from Egypt were the ones who rebelled against what they heard. Moses was angry with them and they ended up dying in the desert because god swore they would never enter his rest as a result of their unbelief. "His rest" is a metaphor for the land of Canaan/ the promised land, which the author of Hebrews uses as a metaphor for an afterlife in some kind of paradise. We will see that in chapter four.
Till next time.
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Titus part five
We are at chapter two, verse 11, which reminds Titus that salvation is for all men, and the grace of god teaches them to just say "no" to ungodliness and worldly passions. They are to live "self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age" (first century BCE) while they wait for the "glorious reappearing" of Jesus. Well they wasted their time waiting. He didn't come. When he got there, he was supposed to "redeem them from all wickedness and purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." Again, it never happened. Those people died without seeing what they were promised.
Verse 13 reminds Titus that he is to be teaching these things to the Cretans, encouraging and rebuking them, with all authority. Where did he get his authority from, Paul? Then Titus is told not to let anyone despise him. How will he stop them?
Chapter 3 begins next but there were no chapter divisions in the original. Plus, the content follows on the heels of Paul telling Titus that he had authority and to not let people despise him. Instead, he is to "remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities (Titus? Paul? The appointed elders?) to be obedient, to be ready to do what is good, to slander no one (including Titus and Paul, but not including the Judaizers), to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men" (Except those of the circumcision group).
Starting in verse 3, Paul gives an example of humility by reminding Titus that, after all, he and Titus both used to be foolish too, "disobedient, deceived, enslaved by all kinds of passions," living in malice, envy, and hatred. But the kindness and love of Jesus appeared (to Paul in a personal revelation) and saved them, not because of anything they had done, but purely out of mercy. If Jesus was so merciful, why didn't he appear to everyone in the same way? Instead they must believe that what Paul tells them is the truth, without evidence from their own senses.
The author says Jesus saved him and Titus by "the washing of rebirth and renewal of the holy spirit whom he poured out generously" on them, through Jesus. The washing of rebirth is usually assumed to mean baptism. Who knows what form their outpouring of the holy spirit took. Now they are justified by grace (yay for grace, that undefinable quantity/quality) and have the hope of an eternal life. Paul wants Titus to stress these things, so that those who trusted in god can devote themselves to doing good, which is profitable for everyone. That's the thing isn't it? Doing good can be profitable for everyone, whether or not there are any gods.
From verse 9, Titus is told how to deal with those Judaizers that Paul despises. Foolish controversies and genealogies (Matthew and Luke have genealogies), and arguments and quarrels about the law, are to be avoided. Titus is to warn a divisive person only twice. After that, he is to have nothing to do with that person. Three strikes they're out. Shunning is next. Notice it doesn't say all the rest of the Cretans are also required to shun that person. However, the humble, considerate, and non-slandering Paul, says that those men are warped and sinful, self-condemned. Uh oh. No eternal life for them.
Verse 13 reminds Titus that he is to be teaching these things to the Cretans, encouraging and rebuking them, with all authority. Where did he get his authority from, Paul? Then Titus is told not to let anyone despise him. How will he stop them?
Chapter 3 begins next but there were no chapter divisions in the original. Plus, the content follows on the heels of Paul telling Titus that he had authority and to not let people despise him. Instead, he is to "remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities (Titus? Paul? The appointed elders?) to be obedient, to be ready to do what is good, to slander no one (including Titus and Paul, but not including the Judaizers), to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men" (Except those of the circumcision group).
Starting in verse 3, Paul gives an example of humility by reminding Titus that, after all, he and Titus both used to be foolish too, "disobedient, deceived, enslaved by all kinds of passions," living in malice, envy, and hatred. But the kindness and love of Jesus appeared (to Paul in a personal revelation) and saved them, not because of anything they had done, but purely out of mercy. If Jesus was so merciful, why didn't he appear to everyone in the same way? Instead they must believe that what Paul tells them is the truth, without evidence from their own senses.
The author says Jesus saved him and Titus by "the washing of rebirth and renewal of the holy spirit whom he poured out generously" on them, through Jesus. The washing of rebirth is usually assumed to mean baptism. Who knows what form their outpouring of the holy spirit took. Now they are justified by grace (yay for grace, that undefinable quantity/quality) and have the hope of an eternal life. Paul wants Titus to stress these things, so that those who trusted in god can devote themselves to doing good, which is profitable for everyone. That's the thing isn't it? Doing good can be profitable for everyone, whether or not there are any gods.
From verse 9, Titus is told how to deal with those Judaizers that Paul despises. Foolish controversies and genealogies (Matthew and Luke have genealogies), and arguments and quarrels about the law, are to be avoided. Titus is to warn a divisive person only twice. After that, he is to have nothing to do with that person. Three strikes they're out. Shunning is next. Notice it doesn't say all the rest of the Cretans are also required to shun that person. However, the humble, considerate, and non-slandering Paul, says that those men are warped and sinful, self-condemned. Uh oh. No eternal life for them.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Titus part three
The last post only covered verse six of chapter one. Now we move on to verse seven. This verse uses the word overseer in the NIV, but it is still talking about the elder. Now, instead of the character of the elder's wife and children, Paul addresses the elder's character. He must not be overbearing, quick-tempered, a drunk, a violent person, or a crook. "He must be hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firmly on to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Let's pause.
The elder is not to deviate from the message he was taught. If this letter is not a fake, the message is none other than Paul's message. There were no Christian scriptures at the time. The message came by word of mouth. There doesn't appear to be any epistle to the Cretans. It is considered trustworthy by Paul if it originated from him. His doctrine is the only sound doctrine. Since Paul addresses those who would oppose it, it is certain that there were already persons opposing it.
Paul died before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, probably in the 60's. So, in the thirty years between Jesus's death and Paul's, minus fourteen years in the wilderness. Paul probably travelled and preached his message approximately 15 years. In that time, he came to expect his teachings about Jesus to be the standard. The "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, most likely came later. It is possible Mark was produced during Paul's lifetime, but there is no indication Paul heard of it or read it. If he did, he may have even regarded it as a false gospel.
Who would oppose Paul's gospel of salvation and spiritual equality for the gentiles? Obviously Jews. I imagine Yahweh believing gentiles would have been his easiest targets. Those who profited by the pagan traditions would also have been offended. Verse 10 goes on to say "There are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially among the circumcision group." AKA Jews. Yep. Verse 11: "They must be silenced (???), because they are ruining whole households by teaching what they ought not to teach-- for the sake of dishonest gain." The dishonest gain is not elaborated on. Perhaps local Jews charged fees for the circumcision of converting gentiles? Who knows.
Verse 12-13 says, "Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and pay no attention to Jewish myths (???) or to the commands of those who reject the truth." (Did Paul completely reject the whole Jewish mythos now contained in the Old Testament?) Read about the Cretan Epimenides and his statement about Cretans here. The statement is often considered a paradox because Epimenides was a Cretan himself, which would make him a liar. However, the statement originally occurred in the context of a poem:
The elder is not to deviate from the message he was taught. If this letter is not a fake, the message is none other than Paul's message. There were no Christian scriptures at the time. The message came by word of mouth. There doesn't appear to be any epistle to the Cretans. It is considered trustworthy by Paul if it originated from him. His doctrine is the only sound doctrine. Since Paul addresses those who would oppose it, it is certain that there were already persons opposing it.
Paul died before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, probably in the 60's. So, in the thirty years between Jesus's death and Paul's, minus fourteen years in the wilderness. Paul probably travelled and preached his message approximately 15 years. In that time, he came to expect his teachings about Jesus to be the standard. The "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, most likely came later. It is possible Mark was produced during Paul's lifetime, but there is no indication Paul heard of it or read it. If he did, he may have even regarded it as a false gospel.
Who would oppose Paul's gospel of salvation and spiritual equality for the gentiles? Obviously Jews. I imagine Yahweh believing gentiles would have been his easiest targets. Those who profited by the pagan traditions would also have been offended. Verse 10 goes on to say "There are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially among the circumcision group." AKA Jews. Yep. Verse 11: "They must be silenced (???), because they are ruining whole households by teaching what they ought not to teach-- for the sake of dishonest gain." The dishonest gain is not elaborated on. Perhaps local Jews charged fees for the circumcision of converting gentiles? Who knows.
Verse 12-13 says, "Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and pay no attention to Jewish myths (???) or to the commands of those who reject the truth." (Did Paul completely reject the whole Jewish mythos now contained in the Old Testament?) Read about the Cretan Epimenides and his statement about Cretans here. The statement is often considered a paradox because Epimenides was a Cretan himself, which would make him a liar. However, the statement originally occurred in the context of a poem:
"They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
I wonder if Paul knew he was quoting a poem about the immortality of Zeus? The fourth line of this poem also occurs in Acts 17:28. There, Paul tells the Athenians it was from one of their own poets, He appears to be either referring to Yahweh, or equating Yahweh with Zeus. That would be interesting.
At any rate, the phrase as it appears in Titus is downright insulting of the Cretans, the very people whom Paul wants to be good little Paulites, um, Christians.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
3 John, part three And wrap up.
In the last post, I made some major errors when recording verse numbers. They have hopefully been fixed.
We continue on with verse 12. There, the author speaks of a Demetrius who is "spoken well of everyone-- and even by the truth itself." How does "the truth" speak? It speaks when the author speaks. The next sentence is "We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true." This Demetrius is an obvious contrast to the evil Diotrephes. The only other Demetrius mentioned in the bible is a silversmith who opposed the christians in Acts 19.
Last, the author says he's got a lot to tell the recipient, but he wants to do it in person, not in a letter. Then he sends greetings to unnamed friends.
So, to wrap up. This letter was written by an unknown person in an unknown location to a person named Gaius, also in an unknown location at an unknown time. There is no claim of inspiration. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. There is no mention of Jesus, his birth, life, teachings, death, or resurrection. This brings doubt to the claim that it is a christian letter, in my mind. There is no mention of any old or new testament events, places, or people. There is no glimpse into the author's theology other than words like brother, church, truth, the name, and god. Nothing ties those particular words definitively to the early christian church. They could be applied to Jews and perhaps even Greeks. The word god (Theos) in this letter does not specify which god, it is a generic Greek word for god.
Because of the ambiguous wording that could have been used by Christians or Jews, or anyone literate in Greek. I suggested a couple possibilities for the provenance of the letter. 1. A Jewish sect, early christian or other, vying for place in the Jewish community. 2. A christian sect vying for dominance among other christian groups. Who knows? I could be wrong on those. However, my point is that there really is no way to know for sure.
One thing is for sure, it does not add anything vital to the Christian scriptures.
We continue on with verse 12. There, the author speaks of a Demetrius who is "spoken well of everyone-- and even by the truth itself." How does "the truth" speak? It speaks when the author speaks. The next sentence is "We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true." This Demetrius is an obvious contrast to the evil Diotrephes. The only other Demetrius mentioned in the bible is a silversmith who opposed the christians in Acts 19.
Last, the author says he's got a lot to tell the recipient, but he wants to do it in person, not in a letter. Then he sends greetings to unnamed friends.
So, to wrap up. This letter was written by an unknown person in an unknown location to a person named Gaius, also in an unknown location at an unknown time. There is no claim of inspiration. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. There is no mention of Jesus, his birth, life, teachings, death, or resurrection. This brings doubt to the claim that it is a christian letter, in my mind. There is no mention of any old or new testament events, places, or people. There is no glimpse into the author's theology other than words like brother, church, truth, the name, and god. Nothing ties those particular words definitively to the early christian church. They could be applied to Jews and perhaps even Greeks. The word god (Theos) in this letter does not specify which god, it is a generic Greek word for god.
Because of the ambiguous wording that could have been used by Christians or Jews, or anyone literate in Greek. I suggested a couple possibilities for the provenance of the letter. 1. A Jewish sect, early christian or other, vying for place in the Jewish community. 2. A christian sect vying for dominance among other christian groups. Who knows? I could be wrong on those. However, my point is that there really is no way to know for sure.
One thing is for sure, it does not add anything vital to the Christian scriptures.
Friday, July 13, 2018
3 John part two
Today we are going to backtrack a little. Let's talk about Gaius. The name is probably of Latin origin, which may mean Gaius was Roman. There are three other mentions of the name Gaius in the new Testament. In Acts 19:29, Gaius was Paul's travelling companion from Macedonia (Greece). Just a few verses later, in Acts 20:4, a Gaius with Paul is from Derbe, which is in Turkey. Paul mentions a Gaius in Romans 16:23, and 1 Corinthians 1:14. From those letters, it seems that Gaius was an hospitable Corinthian, and a disciple of Paul. There is no way to know if the Gaius in 3 John is any of those or none.
Let's address some of the wording in 3 John that might make modern day English readers think this is written to Christians. We must remember that christianity came out of Judaism. Much of its vocabulary and practice was borrowed from Jewish concepts 1. The word elder. Jews had elders. 2. The word brother. People in the same religious community, even Jews, called themselves brothers. 3. The word for church (ekklesia) This was a generic term for a religious assembly or congregation, connected to a synagogue, that was later co-opted by Christians. Jews had those too. 4. The word pagans. This was actually a word that meant gentiles/ gentile nations, or ethnically non-Jews. The only other place it is used in the bible is in Matthew, where is is clearly referring to ethnically non-Jews. There were no Christians in the time period Matthew was writing about. So, it couldn't have been referring to non-christians. Christianity is not an ethnicity or nationality.
Let's now continue on to verse nine. It says, "I wrote to the church, but Diotrophes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us." This is kind of confusing. What church is he talking about? Is it the same church that the brothers reported to about Gaius? That wouldn't make any sense. And who is "us?" I could almost believe this letter was written by Paul to his Corinthian friend/disciple Gaius. This Gaius is hospitable and is a disciple of the letter's author, just like Paul's Gaius. Imagine Paul and his associates going from synagogue to synagogue, trying to teach in the assemblies about his Jesus visions/revelations and what he thought they meant. I imagine there were many Jewish synagogue leaders who would want nothing to do with Paul, his teachings, and his followers.
Verse ten says, "So, if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us." We have only one side of the story here. Diotrophes cannot defend himself. From what I have read of Paul's letters, this seems typical Pauline whining against the opposition. Can you even blame the opposition from trying to curtail what would be considered a heresy to practicing Jews? Whether or not, this was Paul, I'm sure many synagogue leaders were wary of the new christian sect, or any sect.
Verse ten continues, "Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church." Diotrophes does not intend to let anyone from this group (whatever group it is) get a foothold in his congregation.
Verse eleven says, "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." The clear implication is that Diotrophes is evil.
It has occurred to me that another possibility is that this letter is about an established christian church rejecting an even newer controversial christian sect and teaching, after the Pauline era. Who knows? The author gives us no specifics.
Edited for major errors in verse numeration.
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Jude, part 4 and wrap up
We continue with verses 17-19. "...remember what the apostles of our lord (Jesus Christ) foretold. They said to you, 'In the last days there will be scoffers ("mockers" in some translations) who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the spirit." I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it could be taken out and the passage could very well have been written by a Jewish non Christian. None of the ideas in this passage, or in the whole of Jude, have been distinctly Christian.
The term apostle was not new with christianity, it had the generic greek meaning of messenger or one who was sent on behalf of another. Both the old and new testaments speak of scoffers or mockers and last days. The quote Jude mentions does not occur in either the old or new testament. There were issues of divisions in Judaism in the first century, even besides the introduction of Christianity. Jude's letter could very well have been a polemic against the Hellenization of Judaism.
Verses 20-21: ".... build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the holy spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our lord (Jesus Christ) to bring you to eternal life." Again, nothing here is specific to Christianity and could be referring to Judaism. I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it is not necessary to the passage.
Verses 22-23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Snatching from fire is found in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. The Zachariah verse is found in the context of the high priest Joshua (Jesus figure) that I mentioned in a previous post. After Joshua was said to have been snatched from the fire. Zechariah 3:4 says he was dressed in filthy clothes, equated with sin. The angel of the lord had them removed and clean clothes were put on him. Coincidentally, this passage in Jude mentions clothing stained by corrupted (sinful) flesh. Actually, I don't think it was a coincidence. Jude seems to have anchored part of his letter on the first verses in Zechariah 3.
Jude's letter ends with "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (like Joshua in Zechariah 3)--to the one and only god our savior be the glory, majesty, power, and authority, (through Jesus Christ) our lord ( ,) before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." I put the words "through Jesus Christ" and the comma in parentheses to show how the meaning and flow of the sentence is changed without them. There were no comma's in the early manuscripts. Also if you read the interlinear text, the word order of this passage differs from the NIV. The translators are the ones responsible for that. I don't blame those christians who get suspicious of certain translations. Liberties do seem to be taken in many cases. Perhaps doctrinal agendas are at play in some instances.
I urge you to go back and read quickly through the book of Jude, leaving out all references to Jesus Christ. When I do that, I see a Jewish document, not a Christian one. There is no mention of any of Jesus's life or unique teachings. No, birth, baptism, sermons, miracles, death, burial, or resurrection. None of the disciples/apostles are mentioned by name. No specific churches are mentioned. No uniquely christian doctrines are discussed. On the contrary, Jude mentions a number of specifically Jewish teachings and writings, biblical (old testament) and extrabiblical.
This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. I think some enterprising christian may have co-opted a first century Jew's sermon or essay and inserted a few generic references to Jesus. Maybe it was stolen or confiscated. Maybe this writing was referring to those of the new christian sect as the bad guys. Anyway, It seems obvious: Jude=Jew. I don't wonder that it was disputed by the early church.
The term apostle was not new with christianity, it had the generic greek meaning of messenger or one who was sent on behalf of another. Both the old and new testaments speak of scoffers or mockers and last days. The quote Jude mentions does not occur in either the old or new testament. There were issues of divisions in Judaism in the first century, even besides the introduction of Christianity. Jude's letter could very well have been a polemic against the Hellenization of Judaism.
Verses 20-21: ".... build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the holy spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our lord (Jesus Christ) to bring you to eternal life." Again, nothing here is specific to Christianity and could be referring to Judaism. I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it is not necessary to the passage.
Verses 22-23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Snatching from fire is found in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. The Zachariah verse is found in the context of the high priest Joshua (Jesus figure) that I mentioned in a previous post. After Joshua was said to have been snatched from the fire. Zechariah 3:4 says he was dressed in filthy clothes, equated with sin. The angel of the lord had them removed and clean clothes were put on him. Coincidentally, this passage in Jude mentions clothing stained by corrupted (sinful) flesh. Actually, I don't think it was a coincidence. Jude seems to have anchored part of his letter on the first verses in Zechariah 3.
Jude's letter ends with "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (like Joshua in Zechariah 3)--to the one and only god our savior be the glory, majesty, power, and authority, (through Jesus Christ) our lord ( ,) before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." I put the words "through Jesus Christ" and the comma in parentheses to show how the meaning and flow of the sentence is changed without them. There were no comma's in the early manuscripts. Also if you read the interlinear text, the word order of this passage differs from the NIV. The translators are the ones responsible for that. I don't blame those christians who get suspicious of certain translations. Liberties do seem to be taken in many cases. Perhaps doctrinal agendas are at play in some instances.
I urge you to go back and read quickly through the book of Jude, leaving out all references to Jesus Christ. When I do that, I see a Jewish document, not a Christian one. There is no mention of any of Jesus's life or unique teachings. No, birth, baptism, sermons, miracles, death, burial, or resurrection. None of the disciples/apostles are mentioned by name. No specific churches are mentioned. No uniquely christian doctrines are discussed. On the contrary, Jude mentions a number of specifically Jewish teachings and writings, biblical (old testament) and extrabiblical.
This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. I think some enterprising christian may have co-opted a first century Jew's sermon or essay and inserted a few generic references to Jesus. Maybe it was stolen or confiscated. Maybe this writing was referring to those of the new christian sect as the bad guys. Anyway, It seems obvious: Jude=Jew. I don't wonder that it was disputed by the early church.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Jude, part 3
Verse 7 of Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah, with their sexual immorality and perversion, are examples of "those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." This is another old Testament reference. Notice that lack of hospitality is not the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in this passage.
Verse 8 says that "In the same way these dreamers (the condemned people this letter is about) pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. This could apply to Jews who have given up following the law of Moses. (See 2 Peter 2:10)
Verse 9 Talks about the archangel Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. Even Michael, himself a celestial being, did not have the nerve to slander another celestial being. (See 2 Peter 2:10-11) Instead, he said, "The lord rebuke you!" This story is supposed to have come from a document called the Testament of Moses or the Ascension of Moses. However, it bears a remarkable similarity to the first verses of Zechariah 3, where a high priest Joshua (same name as Jesus ) is standing before the angel of the lord (Michael?) and Satan. There Satan is rebuked with the words "The lord rebuke you." Some Wikipedia writer suggests that the word 'Moses' has replaced the word 'Joshua' deliberately, to avoid confusion. You're darn right it would be confusing if Jude said that the devil and Michael argued over the body of Joshua (Jesus). Then this verse would clearly be associated with the high priest Joshua of Zechariah 3, and it might be doubted that the author was referring to the first century Jesus. I can see how that would be a problem for those promoting the first century Jesus guy.
Verse 10 says the godless men don't know what they are talking about, and what they do know does them no good.
Verse 11 says the godless men have taken the way of Cain (murder?), Balaam (greed), and Korah (rebelling against leadership). 2 Peter 2:15 also mentions Balaam.
Verses 12 -13 says the godless men are blemishes at (the jew's? or the christian's ?) love feast. (Echoed in 2 Peter 2:13) They are shepherds who feed only themselves, clouds without rain (see 2Peter 2:17), autumn trees without fruit and uprooted, wild waves, wandering stars with blackest darkness reserved for them (see 2 Peter 2:17 again. Notice how 2 Peter draws many phrases and themes from Jude.)
Verses 14-16 is said to quote directly from the the book of Enoch, "See the lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (That's four times ungodly.) My study bible says that "the book of Enoch was not canonical does not mean it contained no truth." Can't that be said of any book, fiction and non-fiction? It goes on to say "Nor does Jude's quotation of the book mean he considered it inspired." Then what does it mean?
The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. The author of the book of Enoch did not even live at the same time Enoch was supposed to have lived. It is fiction.Enoch is most likely a fictional person. How can it be talking about a prophecy that never happened, from a person who may never have lived, and it still be true? My study bible says "Jude uses the quotation to refer to Christ's second coming and to his judgment of the wicked." So? How does that make it true? How is a fictional quote from a fictional man support for anything? It reminds me of "quotes" from famous people found all over the internet today. It seems clear to me that the author of Jude did not consider it fictional at all. He was ignorant of the history of the book of Enoch. We have an advantage over him.
More to come. Because of pressing family matters, The next post will probably be at the end of next week.
Verse 8 says that "In the same way these dreamers (the condemned people this letter is about) pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. This could apply to Jews who have given up following the law of Moses. (See 2 Peter 2:10)
Verse 9 Talks about the archangel Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. Even Michael, himself a celestial being, did not have the nerve to slander another celestial being. (See 2 Peter 2:10-11) Instead, he said, "The lord rebuke you!" This story is supposed to have come from a document called the Testament of Moses or the Ascension of Moses. However, it bears a remarkable similarity to the first verses of Zechariah 3, where a high priest Joshua (same name as Jesus ) is standing before the angel of the lord (Michael?) and Satan. There Satan is rebuked with the words "The lord rebuke you." Some Wikipedia writer suggests that the word 'Moses' has replaced the word 'Joshua' deliberately, to avoid confusion. You're darn right it would be confusing if Jude said that the devil and Michael argued over the body of Joshua (Jesus). Then this verse would clearly be associated with the high priest Joshua of Zechariah 3, and it might be doubted that the author was referring to the first century Jesus. I can see how that would be a problem for those promoting the first century Jesus guy.
Verse 10 says the godless men don't know what they are talking about, and what they do know does them no good.
Verse 11 says the godless men have taken the way of Cain (murder?), Balaam (greed), and Korah (rebelling against leadership). 2 Peter 2:15 also mentions Balaam.
Verses 12 -13 says the godless men are blemishes at (the jew's? or the christian's ?) love feast. (Echoed in 2 Peter 2:13) They are shepherds who feed only themselves, clouds without rain (see 2Peter 2:17), autumn trees without fruit and uprooted, wild waves, wandering stars with blackest darkness reserved for them (see 2 Peter 2:17 again. Notice how 2 Peter draws many phrases and themes from Jude.)
Verses 14-16 is said to quote directly from the the book of Enoch, "See the lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (That's four times ungodly.) My study bible says that "the book of Enoch was not canonical does not mean it contained no truth." Can't that be said of any book, fiction and non-fiction? It goes on to say "Nor does Jude's quotation of the book mean he considered it inspired." Then what does it mean?
The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. The author of the book of Enoch did not even live at the same time Enoch was supposed to have lived. It is fiction.Enoch is most likely a fictional person. How can it be talking about a prophecy that never happened, from a person who may never have lived, and it still be true? My study bible says "Jude uses the quotation to refer to Christ's second coming and to his judgment of the wicked." So? How does that make it true? How is a fictional quote from a fictional man support for anything? It reminds me of "quotes" from famous people found all over the internet today. It seems clear to me that the author of Jude did not consider it fictional at all. He was ignorant of the history of the book of Enoch. We have an advantage over him.
More to come. Because of pressing family matters, The next post will probably be at the end of next week.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Hell, part 1
Over the next few weeks, I thought we could take a look at Heaven and Hell. My personal, in depth study of hell some years ago was one of the main factors in my deconversion. I looked through my old posts and could not find a comprehensive examination of those subjects, so that's what I want to do now. We will start with Hell, since that is a fear introduced to believers as the only alternative to Heaven, where everyone woul prefer to end up, of course.
The general, cultural idea of Hell, in Christian North America, is either a place of eternal torment with fire, pain, and anguish, or a dark void of eternal separation from god and all that is good. Does the Bible support either of these ideas? Is there reason to believe either version of Hell exists? Let's find out.
Today, we will start with the old testament. I looked up the word Hell in my Strong's concordance. For the old testament there appeared to be only one Hebrew word translated into the English word Hell: Sheol. Sheol is also translated into the English words "death" and "grave" in multiple scriptures. Read about Sheol here: (link)
Sheol of the old testament was not the hell of eternal punishment found christianity. It was an underground world where ALL the dead resided. It has its equivalent in the Greek Hades. Obviously, no such world actually exists. It is pure mythology.
However, it is important to recognize that Jews do not follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" that many protestant christian groups do, including the church of christ, of which I was a member. Jews also have a long tradition of rabbinical writings which include laws, commentary and additional stories. These are found in the Talmud and other books. They are often given as much weight, or more, as what christians would call the old testament, which Jews call the bible.
We are not going to cover what Jewish extrabiblical writings say about hell, because I'm not all that concerned with them. Jews are not going around trying to convince anyone they will go to hell if they do not believe what is taught by Judaism. Many christians, however, are doing just that.
I will give you a few links with Jewish discussions of what they believe about hell and or an afterlife.
Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here
As you can see there is great variation in the Jewish faith and tradition. Each of the above links shows a unique perspective, with some pertinent history. However, they all seem similar in that they do not take a stance of condemnation or eternal punishment/torture. They don't see a need to evangelize to save souls. Most do not think what you believe matters as much as what you do. If christianity had not happened, would the world have been a kinder gentler place? Who knows.
The general, cultural idea of Hell, in Christian North America, is either a place of eternal torment with fire, pain, and anguish, or a dark void of eternal separation from god and all that is good. Does the Bible support either of these ideas? Is there reason to believe either version of Hell exists? Let's find out.
Today, we will start with the old testament. I looked up the word Hell in my Strong's concordance. For the old testament there appeared to be only one Hebrew word translated into the English word Hell: Sheol. Sheol is also translated into the English words "death" and "grave" in multiple scriptures. Read about Sheol here: (link)
Sheol of the old testament was not the hell of eternal punishment found christianity. It was an underground world where ALL the dead resided. It has its equivalent in the Greek Hades. Obviously, no such world actually exists. It is pure mythology.
However, it is important to recognize that Jews do not follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" that many protestant christian groups do, including the church of christ, of which I was a member. Jews also have a long tradition of rabbinical writings which include laws, commentary and additional stories. These are found in the Talmud and other books. They are often given as much weight, or more, as what christians would call the old testament, which Jews call the bible.
We are not going to cover what Jewish extrabiblical writings say about hell, because I'm not all that concerned with them. Jews are not going around trying to convince anyone they will go to hell if they do not believe what is taught by Judaism. Many christians, however, are doing just that.
I will give you a few links with Jewish discussions of what they believe about hell and or an afterlife.
Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here
As you can see there is great variation in the Jewish faith and tradition. Each of the above links shows a unique perspective, with some pertinent history. However, they all seem similar in that they do not take a stance of condemnation or eternal punishment/torture. They don't see a need to evangelize to save souls. Most do not think what you believe matters as much as what you do. If christianity had not happened, would the world have been a kinder gentler place? Who knows.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Ephesians chapter 3
*Paul begins this section by talking about himself. He calls himself a prisoner of Jesus Christ for the sake of the Gentiles to whom he is writing. It is unclear if prisoner here is literal or figurative, but most of Christendom assumes it to mean Paul is literally a prisoner at this time. He goes on to say God's grace was given to him for them. As in Ephesians, Paul mentions the revelation he recieved. This means he has a special insight into what he calls "the mystery of christ." The mystery can be summed up by saying that through the gospel, the Jews and gentiles are actually members of one body and share in the promise of Jesus Christ.
*God has given Paul, in spite of his unworthiness, the special job of making the mystery plainly known to everyone. In the past this mystery was hidden. God had a plan to make his wisdom known to all the powers on earth and in heaven, through the church. He accomplished his plan through Jesus.
Now anyone who has faith in him can approach god with freedom and confidence.
*This is why Paul prays that the readers might strengthened by the power of the spirit and have christ living in their hearts through faith. He wants them all to know how very much christ loves them. God is able do far more than the could ever ask or imagine and his power is at work in them. To him be the glory forever, Amen.
*Does all this actually mean anything? Not really. Does it change anything? Yes, if you believe it. Then you will have a different attitude regarding your status with Yahweh as compared to the Jews. Now you are supposedly part of the family of Yahweh. That was god's plan all along. Yahweh is no longer an ethnic god or a national god, now he is a universal god. The mystery that he always was a universal god has been revealed through Paul.
*It is very interesting that this letter makes gentile believers equal to Jews and co-heirs. There is no superiority to Jews and no replacing Jews in the Yahweh's affections. They are now one big happy family. Again, this is in direct contrast to the Galatian letter, where the mystery was that the Gentiles were the true heirs of Yahweh and the Jews were his illegitimate children. There the gentiles had the superior position and were not going to share their inheritance with the Jews. Which one is the true doctrine of christianity? There can't have been more than one version of christianity, can there?
*God has given Paul, in spite of his unworthiness, the special job of making the mystery plainly known to everyone. In the past this mystery was hidden. God had a plan to make his wisdom known to all the powers on earth and in heaven, through the church. He accomplished his plan through Jesus.
Now anyone who has faith in him can approach god with freedom and confidence.
*This is why Paul prays that the readers might strengthened by the power of the spirit and have christ living in their hearts through faith. He wants them all to know how very much christ loves them. God is able do far more than the could ever ask or imagine and his power is at work in them. To him be the glory forever, Amen.
*Does all this actually mean anything? Not really. Does it change anything? Yes, if you believe it. Then you will have a different attitude regarding your status with Yahweh as compared to the Jews. Now you are supposedly part of the family of Yahweh. That was god's plan all along. Yahweh is no longer an ethnic god or a national god, now he is a universal god. The mystery that he always was a universal god has been revealed through Paul.
*It is very interesting that this letter makes gentile believers equal to Jews and co-heirs. There is no superiority to Jews and no replacing Jews in the Yahweh's affections. They are now one big happy family. Again, this is in direct contrast to the Galatian letter, where the mystery was that the Gentiles were the true heirs of Yahweh and the Jews were his illegitimate children. There the gentiles had the superior position and were not going to share their inheritance with the Jews. Which one is the true doctrine of christianity? There can't have been more than one version of christianity, can there?
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Ephesians chapter 2, part 2
We pick back up at 2:11.
*Paul now talks about the previous difference between gentiles and jews. The gentiles being uncircumcised, were excluded from citzenship in Israel and the covenants of the promise, without hope, and without god. Interestingly, the phrase "without god" is translated from the greek atheoi, which makes it seem that Paul is saying they were basically atheists when it came to the god of Israel.
He also says they were separated from Christ. That is even more interesting. Did Christ not preach salvation of/to the gentiles?
*That doesn't matter now, according to the author. The blood of christ on the cross destroyed the invisible barrier between the two peoples by abolishing the law in his flesh, so both Jews and gentiles could be united. Now everyone has access to the father by one spirit. Now they are all members of god's household, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. Together they are a holy temple, a dwelling in which god lives.
*This is somewhat different than what Paul said in Galatians. In chapters 4 and 5, Paul comes down hard in favor of the gentiles being the children of the promise. He calls them "the children of the free woman" and the Jews "the children of the slave woman." Then he goes on to say "the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." That is in direct contrast to chapter two of Ephesians, which has the Jews and gentiles sharing god as their father in one big happy family.
He also says they were separated from Christ. That is even more interesting. Did Christ not preach salvation of/to the gentiles?
*That doesn't matter now, according to the author. The blood of christ on the cross destroyed the invisible barrier between the two peoples by abolishing the law in his flesh, so both Jews and gentiles could be united. Now everyone has access to the father by one spirit. Now they are all members of god's household, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. Together they are a holy temple, a dwelling in which god lives.
*This is somewhat different than what Paul said in Galatians. In chapters 4 and 5, Paul comes down hard in favor of the gentiles being the children of the promise. He calls them "the children of the free woman" and the Jews "the children of the slave woman." Then he goes on to say "the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." That is in direct contrast to chapter two of Ephesians, which has the Jews and gentiles sharing god as their father in one big happy family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)