We are at 2 Peter 1:12. The author says he will always remind the reader of the stuff they already know. That seems rather pointless doesn't it? He thinks it is right to keep doing this as long as he is alive, because Jesus has made it clear to him that he hasn't got much time left. But no fear, he will find a way to be responsible for helping them remember, even after he shuffles off this mortal coil. This guy has issues.
He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?
The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?
We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.
The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.
Till next time.
Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Saturday, March 2, 2019
Mark part twenty five
We are at Mark 14:22. The twelve disciples are eating the Passover meal. Jesus has said one of them will betray him. He also takes some bread, breaks it, and tells them, "Take it; this is my body." He equates his body with the bread they are eating, not the lamb. He also does not say his body will be broken.
Next he takes the cup, gives thanks and they pass it around. He says this is his "blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." "Blood of the covenant" is a reference back to Exodus 24 where Moses sprinkles the blood of sacrificed bulls on the people and calls it the blood of the covenant. Frankly, it seems to me that such a statement would appear blasphemous or rude to other Jews, almost as though Jesus is mocking Moses. The text implies they are drinking wine (fruit of the vine), because Jesus says he won't ever drink it again until he drinks it in the kingdom of god. (There is wine in the kingdom of god?) Jesus does not tell the disciples to repeat this ceremony in remembrance of him.
A note about the churches of christ: some extremely fundamentalist churches use this as one of their justifications for using only one cup to drink out of during communion service, which is also often called "the lord's supper," but is not actually a supper at all. They also insist that fruit of the vine refers to grape juice and not wine. Though where they would have gotten grape juice in early spring is a mystery. Strangely enough, their "supper" consists of a tiny piece of cracker and a swallow of grape juice. No lamb or other food to dip their unleavened bread into.
Next they sing a hymn and go out to the Mount of Olives, which is between Jerusalem and Bethany. It is still Passover night. There should be a full moon. Jesus predicts his disciples will abandon him, but "after he has risen" (from death or sleep?) he will go to Galilee ahead of them. Peter proclaims he will not fall away from Jesus. Jesus claims he will, that very night. Before the rooster crows twice, Peter will disown Jesus three times. Peter and the others insist they would die with Jesus before they would disown him.
Jesus and his disciples are in Gethsemane, which is located at the base of the Mount of Olives. As the name suggests, there was an olive grove. Jesus was there to pray. Was Gethsemane considered a sacred grove? If it wasn't then, it appears to be now. As far as we know from the text of Mark, all twelve disciples are present. Mark has not told us Judas left. Jesus tells most of them to sit in one place, then takes Peter, James, and John to another part of Gethsemane. He expresses That he is overwhelmed with sorrow and asks the three to remain in one spot while he moves on even further.
Then Jesus prays prostrate on the ground. He calls god his father, tells him that everything is possible for him, then asks god to "take this cup from me." Which seems to mean he knows what is about to happen and is not enthusiastic about going through with it. This and the preceding pronouncements by Jesus would actually make a lot of sense if he had engineered his own martyrdom. Having second thoughts is very human of him. Very few healthy people want to die. He seems to sincerely believe that god could stop it if he wanted to and declares his submission to the will of the father. Jesus is obviously not the same being as the father.
Next Jesus goes back to where he left Peter, James, and John, and rebukes them for falling asleep and not keeping watch. Keeping watch for what? Was Jesus expecting something to happen? If he planned it that way, of course! He left them again with an admonition to keep watch and pray. He repeated his previous prayer, then went back to the three. They were asleep again. Can you blame them? It's night time, they've had a full day, just eaten a meal, drunk wine, and walked to Gethsemane. They are sitting in an olive grove. It's probably very quiet, except for the rhythmic sounds of spring frogs and insects. Jesus is off by himself doing who knows what while they snooze. According to the way the story is written, the narrator is omniscient, but there are no actual witnesses
to Jesus's words and actions.
Next he takes the cup, gives thanks and they pass it around. He says this is his "blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." "Blood of the covenant" is a reference back to Exodus 24 where Moses sprinkles the blood of sacrificed bulls on the people and calls it the blood of the covenant. Frankly, it seems to me that such a statement would appear blasphemous or rude to other Jews, almost as though Jesus is mocking Moses. The text implies they are drinking wine (fruit of the vine), because Jesus says he won't ever drink it again until he drinks it in the kingdom of god. (There is wine in the kingdom of god?) Jesus does not tell the disciples to repeat this ceremony in remembrance of him.
A note about the churches of christ: some extremely fundamentalist churches use this as one of their justifications for using only one cup to drink out of during communion service, which is also often called "the lord's supper," but is not actually a supper at all. They also insist that fruit of the vine refers to grape juice and not wine. Though where they would have gotten grape juice in early spring is a mystery. Strangely enough, their "supper" consists of a tiny piece of cracker and a swallow of grape juice. No lamb or other food to dip their unleavened bread into.
Next they sing a hymn and go out to the Mount of Olives, which is between Jerusalem and Bethany. It is still Passover night. There should be a full moon. Jesus predicts his disciples will abandon him, but "after he has risen" (from death or sleep?) he will go to Galilee ahead of them. Peter proclaims he will not fall away from Jesus. Jesus claims he will, that very night. Before the rooster crows twice, Peter will disown Jesus three times. Peter and the others insist they would die with Jesus before they would disown him.
Jesus and his disciples are in Gethsemane, which is located at the base of the Mount of Olives. As the name suggests, there was an olive grove. Jesus was there to pray. Was Gethsemane considered a sacred grove? If it wasn't then, it appears to be now. As far as we know from the text of Mark, all twelve disciples are present. Mark has not told us Judas left. Jesus tells most of them to sit in one place, then takes Peter, James, and John to another part of Gethsemane. He expresses That he is overwhelmed with sorrow and asks the three to remain in one spot while he moves on even further.
Then Jesus prays prostrate on the ground. He calls god his father, tells him that everything is possible for him, then asks god to "take this cup from me." Which seems to mean he knows what is about to happen and is not enthusiastic about going through with it. This and the preceding pronouncements by Jesus would actually make a lot of sense if he had engineered his own martyrdom. Having second thoughts is very human of him. Very few healthy people want to die. He seems to sincerely believe that god could stop it if he wanted to and declares his submission to the will of the father. Jesus is obviously not the same being as the father.
Next Jesus goes back to where he left Peter, James, and John, and rebukes them for falling asleep and not keeping watch. Keeping watch for what? Was Jesus expecting something to happen? If he planned it that way, of course! He left them again with an admonition to keep watch and pray. He repeated his previous prayer, then went back to the three. They were asleep again. Can you blame them? It's night time, they've had a full day, just eaten a meal, drunk wine, and walked to Gethsemane. They are sitting in an olive grove. It's probably very quiet, except for the rhythmic sounds of spring frogs and insects. Jesus is off by himself doing who knows what while they snooze. According to the way the story is written, the narrator is omniscient, but there are no actual witnesses
to Jesus's words and actions.
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Mark part eighteen
We are at Mark 10:10, still in the divorce passage. Back at the house, the disciples ask Jesus to clarify his position on divorce. He says, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." I just got this thought: what if all the in private explanations were not in the original story. What if they were added later by someone who wanted to provide more details to supplement anything Jesus said that was cryptic or unclear. There is no way to know but it would make sense. This part of the passage is used by christians to say that god is not only against divorce, but remarriage as well. According to my bible's commentary, the whole passage may have been a reference to the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias. Remember, John the baptist was beheaded for expressing his opinion on their divorce/remarriage situation.
Next, people are bringing children to Jesus to touch, presumably because they believed he had magic powers. The disciples tried to stop it, but Jesus told them to let the children come. Again, he says "the kingdom of god belongs to such as these....anyone who will not receive the kingdom of god like a little child will never enter it." He blessed them, which means he said magical words that have no power but probably sounded good.
As Jesus was travelling, a rich young man ran up to Jesus fell on his knees, called Jesus "good teacher", and asked how to inherit eternal life. Then Jesus told the man not to call him good because only god is good. This is fascinating. Isn't Jesus supposed to be god in the flesh? Is Jesus actually saying he himself was not good? Is he a separate being from god? If Jesus was not good, then he couldn't have been a perfect sacrifice, could he?
Jesus tells the young man he needs to keep the commandments. The young man already does that. Then Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor, then follow him (I'm guessing that meant literally follow him around like the disciples.) The young man was sad, he didn't want eternal life bad enough to give up his earthly security. Jesus astonished the disciples by telling them it was practically impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of god, which was probably against everything they had grown up believing. They wondered who could be saved if the rich couldn't. Jesus then tells them all things are possible with god.
Peter reminds Jesus that the disciples left everything to follow Jesus. (They have become itinerant religious beggars. What became of their families and their homes?)Jesus tells them that everyone who has left home and family for the gospel will receive a hundred times what they left, plus persecutions,(oh goody) "and in the age to come, eternal life." Their poor neglected families. Shame on Jesus. Funny thing, in the relatives-to-leave list, wives are not included. I guess that would be kind of odd since he just got through saying what God has joined, let not man separate. Didn't god also join families together? Why is Jesus separating them? But, someone says, it must be a figurative leaving, not literal. Oh, yeah? Read it again.
Jesus and the disciples are now on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus tells them, "The son of man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will hand him over to the gentiles who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later, he will rise." Jesus has a plan.
Next James and John, the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus a favor. They want to sit on his right and left hand in his glory. So, after being told multiple times that the least and last will be first and greatest, they are still jockeying for position. They want to be Jesus's top men. Jesus tells them they don't know what they are asking. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" He has just told them what will happen to "the son of man" maybe they don't understand that he was talking about himself. They think they can take on whatever comes his way.
Jesus tells them they will,(a prophecy?) but he can't give James and John the positions they want. Those spots have been prepared for others. Who?
Next, people are bringing children to Jesus to touch, presumably because they believed he had magic powers. The disciples tried to stop it, but Jesus told them to let the children come. Again, he says "the kingdom of god belongs to such as these....anyone who will not receive the kingdom of god like a little child will never enter it." He blessed them, which means he said magical words that have no power but probably sounded good.
As Jesus was travelling, a rich young man ran up to Jesus fell on his knees, called Jesus "good teacher", and asked how to inherit eternal life. Then Jesus told the man not to call him good because only god is good. This is fascinating. Isn't Jesus supposed to be god in the flesh? Is Jesus actually saying he himself was not good? Is he a separate being from god? If Jesus was not good, then he couldn't have been a perfect sacrifice, could he?
Jesus tells the young man he needs to keep the commandments. The young man already does that. Then Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor, then follow him (I'm guessing that meant literally follow him around like the disciples.) The young man was sad, he didn't want eternal life bad enough to give up his earthly security. Jesus astonished the disciples by telling them it was practically impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of god, which was probably against everything they had grown up believing. They wondered who could be saved if the rich couldn't. Jesus then tells them all things are possible with god.
Peter reminds Jesus that the disciples left everything to follow Jesus. (They have become itinerant religious beggars. What became of their families and their homes?)Jesus tells them that everyone who has left home and family for the gospel will receive a hundred times what they left, plus persecutions,(oh goody) "and in the age to come, eternal life." Their poor neglected families. Shame on Jesus. Funny thing, in the relatives-to-leave list, wives are not included. I guess that would be kind of odd since he just got through saying what God has joined, let not man separate. Didn't god also join families together? Why is Jesus separating them? But, someone says, it must be a figurative leaving, not literal. Oh, yeah? Read it again.
Jesus and the disciples are now on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus tells them, "The son of man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will hand him over to the gentiles who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later, he will rise." Jesus has a plan.
Next James and John, the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus a favor. They want to sit on his right and left hand in his glory. So, after being told multiple times that the least and last will be first and greatest, they are still jockeying for position. They want to be Jesus's top men. Jesus tells them they don't know what they are asking. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" He has just told them what will happen to "the son of man" maybe they don't understand that he was talking about himself. They think they can take on whatever comes his way.
Jesus tells them they will,(a prophecy?) but he can't give James and John the positions they want. Those spots have been prepared for others. Who?
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Mark part fifteen
We are now at Mark 9:2. The text tells us that six days (Luke 9:28 says eight days) after Jesus predicted his own death, Jesus, Peter, James, and John, went up a high mountain, in an unspecified location. They were all alone. There were no other witnesses. Jesus was "transfigured" before the others. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than the whitest white. (Maybe Jesus put a lantern in his robe.) They also saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus. How did they know what Moses and Elijah looked like?
Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.
After the voice, Peter, James, and John, couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.
The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6, " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.
My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.
The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.
Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.
Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.
After the voice, Peter, James, and John, couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.
The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6, " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.
My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.
The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.
Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.
Friday, January 4, 2019
The apostles part five and wrap up.
11)* Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus: Matthew 10:3
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
The apostles part four
8)*Matthew: Matthew 9:9, Matthew 10:3, Mark3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
The apostles part three
5)*Philip: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, John 1:43-46, 48, (from Bethsaida) John 6:5,7, John 12:21-22, John 14:8-9, Acts 1:3
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The apostles part two
3)*James the son of Zebedee: Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19, 29, Mark 3:17, Mark 10:35, Luke 5:10,
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
The twelve apostles
Happy New Year! I thought I would take a little detour and look at the twelve apostles in the New Testament before we continue on with Mark.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Mark part two
We are in Mark chapter one, at verse twelve. Jesus has just been baptized by John the baptist who was said to have been in a desert area. The spirit, which has descended on Jesus sends him "out into the desert," which must have been nearby. Jesus stayed in the desert forty days (magical number) being tempted by Satan. Mark says he was with wild animals and angels attended him. This story is much shorter than the similar event recorded in other gospels. It includes very few details. Notice that no one else was with him as a witness. So, if this was Jesus's claim, everyone who heard it would have had to take his word that he was telling the truth. Can you think of any reason why he would lie?
From there, the text jumps to John the baptist being in prison, after which Jesus went into Galilee telling people to repent because the kingdom of god was near, they were to believe the good news (aka gospel). Do you see that? Jesus didn't start preaching till AFTER John was out of the way. John could not publicly contradict Jesus's claims if he wanted to. Also, the "good news" here was the approaching kingdom of god. It feels like there are so many different gospels in the new testament.
When Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a lake) he recruited Simon (later called Peter) and his brother Andrew by telling the two fishermen that he would make them "fishers of men." How punny. Naturally, they dropped everything and followed him. In this same way, he also recruited James and John, who were just about to go out to fish in their father's boat. Now there are four disciples. Disciple just means student.
They all went to Capernaum. On the Sabbath (Saturday), Jesus taught in the synagogue. This is not anything special. I'm pretty sure any male Jew was allowed to get up and say something in turn. However, the text claims that what Jesus said impressed everyone, but it does not record his words on the occasion. While he was speaking, a man possessed by an evil spirit starts yelling at Jesus. He accuses Jesus of coming to destroy them and says he knows who Jesus is..."the holy one of god." (What if it was actually just some guy yelling, "Hey, I know who he is." Then the story got stretched. It could have happened that way.) Jesus commands the spirit to be quiet and come out of the man, which it does with a shriek. Good cinema. In fact, if this actually happened, who's to say Jesus didn't plant the man in the audience. That kind of thing happens today.
The people were sogullible amazed that they began gossiping about this guy who taught like he knew what he was talking about and could exorcise demons. Naturally the news spread quickly. The five of them then went to the home of Simon and Andrew, where Jesus got rid of Peter's mother-in-law's fever. Then she began to wait on them, 'cause that's what women were expected to do after recovering from a fever and they needed someone to wait on them. Jesus did all this stuff on the Sabbath. The mother-in-law also waited on the men on the Sabbath. Was it just men who were not supposed to work on the Sabbath? Or was waiting on men not considered work?
After sunset, when it was no longer the Sabbath, people began to bring all their sick and demon possessed to Jesus to be healed. He apparently healed a lot of people with "various diseases" and exorcised many demons. (I wonder if had the same success rate modern faith healers have.) However, he didn't let any of the demons speak "because they knew who he was." Ha. That's kind of funny if you think about it. People who knew who Jesus was were not allowed to speak and were said to have demons. Hmm. There is definitely more than one way to look at that.
More to come.
From there, the text jumps to John the baptist being in prison, after which Jesus went into Galilee telling people to repent because the kingdom of god was near, they were to believe the good news (aka gospel). Do you see that? Jesus didn't start preaching till AFTER John was out of the way. John could not publicly contradict Jesus's claims if he wanted to. Also, the "good news" here was the approaching kingdom of god. It feels like there are so many different gospels in the new testament.
When Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a lake) he recruited Simon (later called Peter) and his brother Andrew by telling the two fishermen that he would make them "fishers of men." How punny. Naturally, they dropped everything and followed him. In this same way, he also recruited James and John, who were just about to go out to fish in their father's boat. Now there are four disciples. Disciple just means student.
They all went to Capernaum. On the Sabbath (Saturday), Jesus taught in the synagogue. This is not anything special. I'm pretty sure any male Jew was allowed to get up and say something in turn. However, the text claims that what Jesus said impressed everyone, but it does not record his words on the occasion. While he was speaking, a man possessed by an evil spirit starts yelling at Jesus. He accuses Jesus of coming to destroy them and says he knows who Jesus is..."the holy one of god." (What if it was actually just some guy yelling, "Hey, I know who he is." Then the story got stretched. It could have happened that way.) Jesus commands the spirit to be quiet and come out of the man, which it does with a shriek. Good cinema. In fact, if this actually happened, who's to say Jesus didn't plant the man in the audience. That kind of thing happens today.
The people were so
After sunset, when it was no longer the Sabbath, people began to bring all their sick and demon possessed to Jesus to be healed. He apparently healed a lot of people with "various diseases" and exorcised many demons. (I wonder if had the same success rate modern faith healers have.) However, he didn't let any of the demons speak "because they knew who he was." Ha. That's kind of funny if you think about it. People who knew who Jesus was were not allowed to speak and were said to have demons. Hmm. There is definitely more than one way to look at that.
More to come.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Resurrection part two
We are still in the book of John. In chapter 11, Jesus' friend Lazarus has died. His sister Martha is distraught. She is convinced that if Jesus had come sooner, Lazarus would not have died. In verse 23, Jesus tells Martha Lazarus will rise again. Martha says, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus replies, " I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Jesus asks Martha if she believes this and she says she does. Martha goes and tells her sister Mary that Jesus has arrived. Mary runs and tells Jesus the same thing Martha had, that Lazarus would still be alive if Jesus had come sooner. This time however, Jesus does not give his resurrection spiel. He responds to Mary's distress in a more emotional way. He weeps. Why? Presumably he knows he's going to raise Lazarus from the dead. Even if he waits till judgment day, Lazarus is guaranteed to live again, right? Unsurprisingly, that is no consolation to the living. It rarely is.
So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead. There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?
Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.
In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.
In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)
In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.
More to come.
So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead. There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?
Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.
In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.
In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)
In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.
More to come.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Resurrection part one
I feel like we need to cover resurrection in the bible as a natural segue to the study of heaven. First I want to note that the word resurrection does not appear at all in the Old Testament. What do you make of that? In the New Testament, the Greek word usually translated resurrection is anastasis, which according to Strong's concordance, means "standing up again" or a literal resurrection from the dead. It can also be used in a figurative sense. We will see how that works as we go through the scriptures.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Heaven part ten
We are now at the book of John. Let's see if anything different is said about heaven. In John 1: 51, Jesus tells Nathaniel that because he believes, he will see heaven open and the angels of god ascending and descending on the son of man. This supposed future happening never happens in the bible.
In John 3:13, Jesus says that "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the son of man." This is presumed by christians to be Jesus himself. In 6:32-33, Jesus says, "It is not Moses who has given you bread from heaven (a reference to manna), but it is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of god is he who came down from heaven and gives life to the world." Again, this is presumed to be Jesus. This is confirmed in 6:38 where Jesus says, "I have come down from heaven...." None of the other gospel books have Jesus saying anything remotely like this. Verse 6:41-"I am the bread that came down from heaven." Verses 6:50-53, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. The bread is his flesh. Anyone who eats of it will live forever. (Cannibalism!) By the way, in these passages, Jesus does not try to make this into a metaphor. He says his flesh is real food and his blood real drink. Those who eat and drink him have eternal life. The Catholics didn't just make up stuff when they insisted that they are actually eating Jesus's flesh during communion. They got it from the book of John.
We move on to Acts. In 1:9-11, Jesus was taken up to heaven (the sky) in front of the apostles. In Acts 3:21, Peter tells a crowd that Jesus must remain in heaven "until the time comes for god to restore everything." In 7:55-56, Stephen sees "heaven open and the son of man standing at the right hand of god. God has hands. In 9:3, Saul (Paul) sees a light from heaven (the sky) flash around him and hears god speak to him. In 10:11, Peter has a vision of heaven (the sky) opening and a large sheet with all kinds of animals being let down to earth. God also speaks to him.
We don't learn much more about heaven until we get to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, where Paul says there is only one god, but even if there were "so-called gods" in heaven or earth, the people Paul is writing to only worship the one god the father and the one lord Jesus. In 1 Cor. 15:47-53, Paul says there was the first man made from the earth and the second man from heaven. Paul's followers are currently earthly men, but in the future they will "bear the likeness of the man from heaven." Obviously Jesus. Paul goes on to say that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does perishable inherit imperishable." No worries, they will all be transformed from the flesh in a flash, at the last trumpet. They will be clothed with the imperishable and will become immortal. What about the judgment and all that jazz?
In 2nd Corinthians 12:2, Paul boasts about his visions and revelations by telling about "a man" who was caught up to the third heaven or paradise. What is this third heaven? Apparently, there are many apocryphal stories and legends about this third heaven, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible.
More to come.
In John 3:13, Jesus says that "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the son of man." This is presumed by christians to be Jesus himself. In 6:32-33, Jesus says, "It is not Moses who has given you bread from heaven (a reference to manna), but it is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of god is he who came down from heaven and gives life to the world." Again, this is presumed to be Jesus. This is confirmed in 6:38 where Jesus says, "I have come down from heaven...." None of the other gospel books have Jesus saying anything remotely like this. Verse 6:41-"I am the bread that came down from heaven." Verses 6:50-53, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. The bread is his flesh. Anyone who eats of it will live forever. (Cannibalism!) By the way, in these passages, Jesus does not try to make this into a metaphor. He says his flesh is real food and his blood real drink. Those who eat and drink him have eternal life. The Catholics didn't just make up stuff when they insisted that they are actually eating Jesus's flesh during communion. They got it from the book of John.
We move on to Acts. In 1:9-11, Jesus was taken up to heaven (the sky) in front of the apostles. In Acts 3:21, Peter tells a crowd that Jesus must remain in heaven "until the time comes for god to restore everything." In 7:55-56, Stephen sees "heaven open and the son of man standing at the right hand of god. God has hands. In 9:3, Saul (Paul) sees a light from heaven (the sky) flash around him and hears god speak to him. In 10:11, Peter has a vision of heaven (the sky) opening and a large sheet with all kinds of animals being let down to earth. God also speaks to him.
We don't learn much more about heaven until we get to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, where Paul says there is only one god, but even if there were "so-called gods" in heaven or earth, the people Paul is writing to only worship the one god the father and the one lord Jesus. In 1 Cor. 15:47-53, Paul says there was the first man made from the earth and the second man from heaven. Paul's followers are currently earthly men, but in the future they will "bear the likeness of the man from heaven." Obviously Jesus. Paul goes on to say that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does perishable inherit imperishable." No worries, they will all be transformed from the flesh in a flash, at the last trumpet. They will be clothed with the imperishable and will become immortal. What about the judgment and all that jazz?
In 2nd Corinthians 12:2, Paul boasts about his visions and revelations by telling about "a man" who was caught up to the third heaven or paradise. What is this third heaven? Apparently, there are many apocryphal stories and legends about this third heaven, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible.
More to come.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
3 John introduction, and part one
Next we take a look at the book of the bible called the Third Epistle (letter) of John. This letter was not written about by the authors of the earliest known christian literature. It was disputed as authentic in the 3rd century and was not even accepted into the bible canon until the fifth century. The author and date of writing are unknown. However, a few similarities to the other writings attributed to John, lead some to believe it had the same author and was written in the same time frame.
The letter begins just like 2 John with "the elder" indicating the author is a person of some authority in a church. It is addressed to his dear friend Gaius, of whose identity or location we have no clue. The author hopes his friend is healthy and his soul is well. The author has been pleased to get a good report from "some brothers" about Gaius and how he is continuing to "walk in the truth." The nature of this truth is not explained. The identity of the brothers is not revealed. The author refers to Gaius as his child. I'm assuming this is metaphorical and Gaius is a student, disciple, or convert of the author's. The author told his church about Gaius.
These brothers were treated well by Gaius, even though they were strangers to him. The author suggests that Gaius send them on their way "in a manner worthy of god." I assume this means to be generous with resources. These particular brothers are said to have gone out "for the sake of the name." What is this name? You might think it is Jesus, however, it could very well be the Jewish god Yahweh.
According to my bible commentary, many Jews today call god by a phrase that means "the name." Jews considered the name of god holy. In order to keep from breaking the commandment about using god's name in vain, they resorted to euphemisms for god. In fact, after doing a quick scan of this letter, I realize Jesus is not even mentioned or alluded to in the whole letter. Could this be another possible case of a letter written by a Jew being taken for a christian document? I'm beginning to think so.
When these brothers (fellow Jews or Jewish christians?) went out for the sake of the name, they received no help no help from the pagans. They were probably proselytizers, commonly called missionaries. Either that, or perhaps they were trying to drum up monetary support for displaced Jews during the diaspora. Just speculation.
More to come.
The letter begins just like 2 John with "the elder" indicating the author is a person of some authority in a church. It is addressed to his dear friend Gaius, of whose identity or location we have no clue. The author hopes his friend is healthy and his soul is well. The author has been pleased to get a good report from "some brothers" about Gaius and how he is continuing to "walk in the truth." The nature of this truth is not explained. The identity of the brothers is not revealed. The author refers to Gaius as his child. I'm assuming this is metaphorical and Gaius is a student, disciple, or convert of the author's. The author told his church about Gaius.
These brothers were treated well by Gaius, even though they were strangers to him. The author suggests that Gaius send them on their way "in a manner worthy of god." I assume this means to be generous with resources. These particular brothers are said to have gone out "for the sake of the name." What is this name? You might think it is Jesus, however, it could very well be the Jewish god Yahweh.
According to my bible commentary, many Jews today call god by a phrase that means "the name." Jews considered the name of god holy. In order to keep from breaking the commandment about using god's name in vain, they resorted to euphemisms for god. In fact, after doing a quick scan of this letter, I realize Jesus is not even mentioned or alluded to in the whole letter. Could this be another possible case of a letter written by a Jew being taken for a christian document? I'm beginning to think so.
When these brothers (fellow Jews or Jewish christians?) went out for the sake of the name, they received no help no help from the pagans. They were probably proselytizers, commonly called missionaries. Either that, or perhaps they were trying to drum up monetary support for displaced Jews during the diaspora. Just speculation.
More to come.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
2 John part 4
Last time I talked about what hubris the author of the gospel of John must have had to effectively have made himself the mouthpiece of god. Then I got to thinking. Most of the bible writers had to have been charlatans, mentally ill, or deluded. They set themselves up as authorities about the words and actions of a god that cannot be verified (the god, the actions, or the words) and we must take their word for it that they are telling us the truth or know what they are talking about.
Let us continue with verse 7. "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." This is what you call group insurance. No one wants to be called a deceiver or an antichrist. This puts a person in an uncomfortable position if they just don't believe. There is no room to wiggle here. This is the attitude of a cult. What if you are in a community or a family of believers? You may have no option but to pretend belief.
Commentators say that this passage is in response to something called the "Gnostic heresy." Gnosticism is supposed to have said that "the son of god did not become flesh, he temporarily came upon the man Jesus between his baptism and crucifixion." It doesn't really matter. If Jesus Christ is not acknowledged, in way whatsoever, this scripture is used to condemn. I'm sure many first century Jews did not believe or accept that any actual son of god appeared in the flesh. Many people all over the world still do not accept it, including me. Some people don't even believe that any Jesus Christ, in any form, ever existed. According to this verse, that makes us the antichrist.
This verse is also compared to one in 1 John, to try to prove that they have the same author:
1 John 4:2-3, "This is how you can recognize the spirit of god: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from god. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is in the world." Notice the wording is similar but not precisely the same. Again, it may or may not have been written by the same person. Neither the John epistles, nor the gospel, state who the authors are in the text.
Notice the condemnation of anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus. Clearly, at that time, there must have been enough people denying the existence of Jesus, whether in the flesh or in the divine, to warrant an attempt to curb the spread of such teaching. Basically, the readers of these letters are being told to cover their ears and yell "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" when anyone tries to convince them they are wrong. Such a person would not be from god. Where would they be from? We shudder to think.
These are the kinds of passages that scare many christians into refusing to read, listen to, or even associate with, nonbelievers. The religion comes with built in safeguards to prevent members from questioning too hard or learning too much. Anyone who does not acknowledge belief in Jesus, is automatically suspect and is often disregarded as any kind of expert or authority on any subject that touches the fundamentalist christian's beliefs about history, science, and even their perception of reality. The opinions of nonbelievers on all sorts of subjects do not matter to the "true believer."
Let us continue with verse 7. "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." This is what you call group insurance. No one wants to be called a deceiver or an antichrist. This puts a person in an uncomfortable position if they just don't believe. There is no room to wiggle here. This is the attitude of a cult. What if you are in a community or a family of believers? You may have no option but to pretend belief.
Commentators say that this passage is in response to something called the "Gnostic heresy." Gnosticism is supposed to have said that "the son of god did not become flesh, he temporarily came upon the man Jesus between his baptism and crucifixion." It doesn't really matter. If Jesus Christ is not acknowledged, in way whatsoever, this scripture is used to condemn. I'm sure many first century Jews did not believe or accept that any actual son of god appeared in the flesh. Many people all over the world still do not accept it, including me. Some people don't even believe that any Jesus Christ, in any form, ever existed. According to this verse, that makes us the antichrist.
This verse is also compared to one in 1 John, to try to prove that they have the same author:
1 John 4:2-3, "This is how you can recognize the spirit of god: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from god. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is in the world." Notice the wording is similar but not precisely the same. Again, it may or may not have been written by the same person. Neither the John epistles, nor the gospel, state who the authors are in the text.
Notice the condemnation of anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus. Clearly, at that time, there must have been enough people denying the existence of Jesus, whether in the flesh or in the divine, to warrant an attempt to curb the spread of such teaching. Basically, the readers of these letters are being told to cover their ears and yell "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" when anyone tries to convince them they are wrong. Such a person would not be from god. Where would they be from? We shudder to think.
These are the kinds of passages that scare many christians into refusing to read, listen to, or even associate with, nonbelievers. The religion comes with built in safeguards to prevent members from questioning too hard or learning too much. Anyone who does not acknowledge belief in Jesus, is automatically suspect and is often disregarded as any kind of expert or authority on any subject that touches the fundamentalist christian's beliefs about history, science, and even their perception of reality. The opinions of nonbelievers on all sorts of subjects do not matter to the "true believer."
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
2 John, part 3
We move on to verse 6. "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love ( noun, agape)." Here we have the author's definition of love: walking in obedience god's to commands. What commands? The ones that say walk in love. Walk in love by obeying the command to walk in love. Say what? This is the definition of a circular argument.
This verse is another that is compared to ones in 1 John and the gospel of John to identify the authors as being the same. Let's take a look at them.
1 John 5:3- "This is love for god: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome." That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same. And isn't the fact that god's commands were burdensome part of the reason Jesus was supposed to have come, to relieve us of that burden?
John 14:23- "Jesus replied, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.'" That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same at all. Really, I wonder about these "scholars" who determine that things are written by the same people if they just happen to have two or more of the same words in a sentence that conveys similar meaning. If these are things taught by the same community, wouldn't all the people in the community begin to sound alike? Today we call it "christianese." That is when you use christian buzz words and phrases that identify you as part of the tribe. Even particular denominations have their own
Identifying speech. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, "guide, guard, and direct us" during a prayer, I'd be a millionaire. Does that make them all the same person? There are even times when I sit in a worship service and can predict the next sentence out of a preacher's mouth.
Let's think about the hubris of the author of John. The book was written half a century or more after Jesus died, if he even existed. Yet, the author is putting words in Jesus's mouth telling the readers that they need to follow the teachings of Jesus to be on god's good side. Not only that, the reader is told in the next few verses that the words of Jesus are literally the words of god transmitted through Jesus. Where are those teachings found? In John's book. John is in effect making himself the mouthpiece of god, if you think about it. Also, if those words of Jesus were literally the words of god, they would be super important to remember and transmit, right? Why didn't John write them down sooner, like fifty years before. What took him so long?
More to come.
This verse is another that is compared to ones in 1 John and the gospel of John to identify the authors as being the same. Let's take a look at them.
1 John 5:3- "This is love for god: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome." That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same. And isn't the fact that god's commands were burdensome part of the reason Jesus was supposed to have come, to relieve us of that burden?
John 14:23- "Jesus replied, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.'" That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same at all. Really, I wonder about these "scholars" who determine that things are written by the same people if they just happen to have two or more of the same words in a sentence that conveys similar meaning. If these are things taught by the same community, wouldn't all the people in the community begin to sound alike? Today we call it "christianese." That is when you use christian buzz words and phrases that identify you as part of the tribe. Even particular denominations have their own
Identifying speech. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, "guide, guard, and direct us" during a prayer, I'd be a millionaire. Does that make them all the same person? There are even times when I sit in a worship service and can predict the next sentence out of a preacher's mouth.
Let's think about the hubris of the author of John. The book was written half a century or more after Jesus died, if he even existed. Yet, the author is putting words in Jesus's mouth telling the readers that they need to follow the teachings of Jesus to be on god's good side. Not only that, the reader is told in the next few verses that the words of Jesus are literally the words of god transmitted through Jesus. Where are those teachings found? In John's book. John is in effect making himself the mouthpiece of god, if you think about it. Also, if those words of Jesus were literally the words of god, they would be super important to remember and transmit, right? Why didn't John write them down sooner, like fifty years before. What took him so long?
More to come.
Friday, June 29, 2018
2 John part 2
We continue on with verse 5 which says "and now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another." This is a deceptively simple command, until you question from what beginning, what is love, and who are the one another. Are the "one another" fellow Christians, fellow Jewish Christians, or all people everywhere?
The word love here is derived from the Greek root verb agapao. You may have heard of the related noun agape, which, for Christians, represents a special self-sacrificial, divine, Yahweh love. The noun form, agape, appears to have been first used in the greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It was apparently derived from the verb. The verb forms, as in this passage, were common in secular ancient Greek writings. The ancient Greeks used it to simply mean having affection or preference for someone or something. Most Christians that I am acquainted with do not differentiate between the religious noun and the common verb. It's all the same to them.
This verse is one of a list of verses that my study bible says correlates to verses in 1 John and the gospel of John, which supposedly proves they have the same author. Lets see how they match up.
1 John 2:7- "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard." This passage does not come right out and state what the command is. It is only implied, up until 1 John 3:11. A quick scan of 1st John shows me that the love one another in that book is being applied to fellow Christians or "brothers."
John 13:34-35- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another." These are supposed to be the words of Jesus. 1 John and 2 John appear to be referring back to this passage. They seem saying the command is not new, because it was supposed to be new when Jesus gave it. That is possibly the "beginning" referred to in the other two verses.
As I was writing this, a question came to mind about whether Paul ever preached "love one another" as a command of Jesus. The only place in Paul's writing in which I found the specific phrase "love one another" is Romans 13:8. It says "let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." Here Paul seems to be saying that to love one another is a universal obligation for all humanity which also fulfills the law of Moses. (The Old Testament makes it clear that the love that fulfilled the law was directed at fellow
Jews and was not necessarily universal.) Paul never mentions love one another being a separate command given by Jesus to his disciples. For Paul the beginning of the command was the law. Other Pauline letters do stress the importance of love, but do not present it as a direct command of Jesus, as far as I can tell.
I want to add that this seems rather hypocritical of Paul, since not all the writings attributed to him show a universal love for all of humanity. He displays some marked instances of dislike for particular people and groups of people. It is interesting to note that the letters attributed to Paul were probably written well before any of the letters attributed to John and even before the gospel of John.
Beside all that, how easy do you think it is to have affection for all of humanity? Most people have a hierarchy of affection, starting with their immediate family and moving outward to friends, acquaintances, countrymen, etc. should we be obligated to have the same level of affectionate feeling for everyone? Is it possible? Christians often say that this agape has nothing to do with how you feel, but with how you treat others. I'm not convinced. I don't think that is what love is. That is altruism. It's not the same, in my opinion.
The word love here is derived from the Greek root verb agapao. You may have heard of the related noun agape, which, for Christians, represents a special self-sacrificial, divine, Yahweh love. The noun form, agape, appears to have been first used in the greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It was apparently derived from the verb. The verb forms, as in this passage, were common in secular ancient Greek writings. The ancient Greeks used it to simply mean having affection or preference for someone or something. Most Christians that I am acquainted with do not differentiate between the religious noun and the common verb. It's all the same to them.
This verse is one of a list of verses that my study bible says correlates to verses in 1 John and the gospel of John, which supposedly proves they have the same author. Lets see how they match up.
1 John 2:7- "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard." This passage does not come right out and state what the command is. It is only implied, up until 1 John 3:11. A quick scan of 1st John shows me that the love one another in that book is being applied to fellow Christians or "brothers."
John 13:34-35- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another." These are supposed to be the words of Jesus. 1 John and 2 John appear to be referring back to this passage. They seem saying the command is not new, because it was supposed to be new when Jesus gave it. That is possibly the "beginning" referred to in the other two verses.
As I was writing this, a question came to mind about whether Paul ever preached "love one another" as a command of Jesus. The only place in Paul's writing in which I found the specific phrase "love one another" is Romans 13:8. It says "let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." Here Paul seems to be saying that to love one another is a universal obligation for all humanity which also fulfills the law of Moses. (The Old Testament makes it clear that the love that fulfilled the law was directed at fellow
Jews and was not necessarily universal.) Paul never mentions love one another being a separate command given by Jesus to his disciples. For Paul the beginning of the command was the law. Other Pauline letters do stress the importance of love, but do not present it as a direct command of Jesus, as far as I can tell.
I want to add that this seems rather hypocritical of Paul, since not all the writings attributed to him show a universal love for all of humanity. He displays some marked instances of dislike for particular people and groups of people. It is interesting to note that the letters attributed to Paul were probably written well before any of the letters attributed to John and even before the gospel of John.
Beside all that, how easy do you think it is to have affection for all of humanity? Most people have a hierarchy of affection, starting with their immediate family and moving outward to friends, acquaintances, countrymen, etc. should we be obligated to have the same level of affectionate feeling for everyone? Is it possible? Christians often say that this agape has nothing to do with how you feel, but with how you treat others. I'm not convinced. I don't think that is what love is. That is altruism. It's not the same, in my opinion.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
2 John, introduction and part one
For my next study, we will look at the book of 2nd John. Why? Because it's nice and short. I don't think it is necessary to have read 1st John first, as we will see. I might even continue on to 3rd John after that.
You can read about 2 John here. This book of the bible is in the form of a letter. Its author is usually assumed to be "John the evangelist" or the apostle John, one of Jesus's original twelve chosen disciples. Because of that, it is also assumed that the book was written in the first century. Because it contains a few sentiments very similar to those found in the books labelled 1 John, 3 John, and the gospel of John, it is assumed they all have the same author and were written in the same general time period, 85-95 BCE. Note that it is more than 50 years after the supposed date of Jesus's supposed death on the cross.
Let us be quite clear. None of the books of the bible attributed to this John bear John's name in the text. None. They could have been written by anyone. Each could have been written by separate authors, each author copying the style of the first. The point is no one actually knows the authors or the dates of the books labelled with John's name. They are guessing. You are not told that in Sunday school.
The letter begins with "The elder, to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth--and not I only, but also all who know the truth-- because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever." No names are given. The elder is unknown, yet assumed to be John. The chosen lady is also unknown. The possibilities of her identity have been said to include 1. The christian church at large 2. A specific church congregation 3. A revered individual lady 4. Mary, the mother of Jesus. The last seems to me to be nearly impossible. If this letter was written 85-95 years after Jesus's birth, Mary would most likely have been long dead. The author does not state the exact nature of the truth which the lady and her children know.
Verse 3 says "Grace, mercy and peace from god the father and from Jesus Christ, the father's son, will be with us in truth and love." It seems to be a standard greeting and identifies Jesus as god's son. However, it does not claim Jesus is god in the flesh, or is equal to god.
Verse 4 says, "It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the father commanded us." Who are the children? Don't know. What is this truth? Don't know. When, where, and by whom, was this command of the father received? Don't know. There is no context to answer these questions. Most Christians, however, would use other books of the bible to get the answers. A common christian strategy is to "let the bible interpret the bible." However, we need to remember that the bible as a collection of christian scriptures didn't exist when this letter was written. Each writing needs to be looked at separately and examined as a stand alone document.
More to come.
You can read about 2 John here. This book of the bible is in the form of a letter. Its author is usually assumed to be "John the evangelist" or the apostle John, one of Jesus's original twelve chosen disciples. Because of that, it is also assumed that the book was written in the first century. Because it contains a few sentiments very similar to those found in the books labelled 1 John, 3 John, and the gospel of John, it is assumed they all have the same author and were written in the same general time period, 85-95 BCE. Note that it is more than 50 years after the supposed date of Jesus's supposed death on the cross.
Let us be quite clear. None of the books of the bible attributed to this John bear John's name in the text. None. They could have been written by anyone. Each could have been written by separate authors, each author copying the style of the first. The point is no one actually knows the authors or the dates of the books labelled with John's name. They are guessing. You are not told that in Sunday school.
The letter begins with "The elder, to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth--and not I only, but also all who know the truth-- because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever." No names are given. The elder is unknown, yet assumed to be John. The chosen lady is also unknown. The possibilities of her identity have been said to include 1. The christian church at large 2. A specific church congregation 3. A revered individual lady 4. Mary, the mother of Jesus. The last seems to me to be nearly impossible. If this letter was written 85-95 years after Jesus's birth, Mary would most likely have been long dead. The author does not state the exact nature of the truth which the lady and her children know.
Verse 3 says "Grace, mercy and peace from god the father and from Jesus Christ, the father's son, will be with us in truth and love." It seems to be a standard greeting and identifies Jesus as god's son. However, it does not claim Jesus is god in the flesh, or is equal to god.
Verse 4 says, "It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the father commanded us." Who are the children? Don't know. What is this truth? Don't know. When, where, and by whom, was this command of the father received? Don't know. There is no context to answer these questions. Most Christians, however, would use other books of the bible to get the answers. A common christian strategy is to "let the bible interpret the bible." However, we need to remember that the bible as a collection of christian scriptures didn't exist when this letter was written. Each writing needs to be looked at separately and examined as a stand alone document.
More to come.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Jesus Burning part 5, wrap up.
We continue on in Luke. In chapter 16, we come to the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus was a poor beggar who was never helped by the rich man. They both died. The rich man went to hell hades) and was in torment. Lazarus went to a place far way, but not so far that the rich man couldn't see him with "Father Abraham." (You remember Abraham, the lying, deadbeat father of Ishmael who was willing to kill his son Isaac.) The rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus with water to cool his tongue because he was in agony in the fire. This looks to me like the only time in the bible that hades, not gehenna, is said to be the fiery tormenting place. Plus, they went there right after death, which leaves out the gathering of souls and final judgement.
Abraham tells the rich man that he just got what he deserved, a kind of divine karma. Plus, Lazarus couldn't deliver water if he wanted to. An uncrossable chasm has been fixed between the two realms. However, they seem to be able to see each other. Lovely.
In chapter 19, we have a version of the parable of the talents that we saw in Matthew 25. This time the money the master (god figure) doled out is in minas. A talent was 60 minas. The master/king in this story is not quite as wealthy as the last one. Anyway, again, one servant did not invest the money he was given and increase it for the master. The money was taken away from that servant and given to a servant who had made interest on his minas. The king then says, "To everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Remember that this king is supposed to be a representation of god. This parable is supposed to represent divine judgement.
There are a few more vague references to judgement in the book of Luke, but nothing obvious. Next we look at John. I could find no obvious references to a final judgement/condemnation, until I reached chapter 12. Verse 48 says,"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him in the last day." There are no specifics about how what condemnation entails.
The next reference is in chapter 15. There Jesus calls himself the true vine. Unproductive branches, those that don't remain in the vine, are pruned off and cast into the fire and burned, an obvious reference to divine punishment. Believe it or not, that seems to be it. We are at the end of our study of damnation and hell. There may be a few more scattered references, but I'm tired of this topic.
What have we learned? It appears that the modern generic version of the christian hell is a muddled mash up of all the elements we have found scattered throughout the bible. If I were to try to create a sythesis with as few internal contradictions as possible, I would say that after death, everyone goes to hades/sheol, which is underground. In hades, there may be separate places for good people and bad people separated by a chasm. The bad people are those who did not help the poor and needy, those who did not follow jesus's teachings, and those who were unproductive for god. They may or may not be thrown into a pit (which may be tartarus/abaddon) or a fire in hades. The good people may or may not get to be with Abraham. Some stories seem to imply that the dead are still possessors of physical bodies that feel pain or pleasure. Some people get to be resurrected early. They have priveledges. At the last judgement, everyone still in hades comes out to get their eternal reward or punishment. Everyone is judged according to what they have done. The sinners, unbelievers, Satan, and hades, are all thrown into a lake of fire (of unknown location), the second death, which may or may not be Gehenna. They may or may not be tortured forever. If the parables acurately represent god, he will have no qualms at meting out the consequences of his divine wrath. Jesus and the saved may or may not watch the punishment of the damned. Is this what you believe? Why?
Abraham tells the rich man that he just got what he deserved, a kind of divine karma. Plus, Lazarus couldn't deliver water if he wanted to. An uncrossable chasm has been fixed between the two realms. However, they seem to be able to see each other. Lovely.
In chapter 19, we have a version of the parable of the talents that we saw in Matthew 25. This time the money the master (god figure) doled out is in minas. A talent was 60 minas. The master/king in this story is not quite as wealthy as the last one. Anyway, again, one servant did not invest the money he was given and increase it for the master. The money was taken away from that servant and given to a servant who had made interest on his minas. The king then says, "To everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Remember that this king is supposed to be a representation of god. This parable is supposed to represent divine judgement.
There are a few more vague references to judgement in the book of Luke, but nothing obvious. Next we look at John. I could find no obvious references to a final judgement/condemnation, until I reached chapter 12. Verse 48 says,"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him in the last day." There are no specifics about how what condemnation entails.
The next reference is in chapter 15. There Jesus calls himself the true vine. Unproductive branches, those that don't remain in the vine, are pruned off and cast into the fire and burned, an obvious reference to divine punishment. Believe it or not, that seems to be it. We are at the end of our study of damnation and hell. There may be a few more scattered references, but I'm tired of this topic.
What have we learned? It appears that the modern generic version of the christian hell is a muddled mash up of all the elements we have found scattered throughout the bible. If I were to try to create a sythesis with as few internal contradictions as possible, I would say that after death, everyone goes to hades/sheol, which is underground. In hades, there may be separate places for good people and bad people separated by a chasm. The bad people are those who did not help the poor and needy, those who did not follow jesus's teachings, and those who were unproductive for god. They may or may not be thrown into a pit (which may be tartarus/abaddon) or a fire in hades. The good people may or may not get to be with Abraham. Some stories seem to imply that the dead are still possessors of physical bodies that feel pain or pleasure. Some people get to be resurrected early. They have priveledges. At the last judgement, everyone still in hades comes out to get their eternal reward or punishment. Everyone is judged according to what they have done. The sinners, unbelievers, Satan, and hades, are all thrown into a lake of fire (of unknown location), the second death, which may or may not be Gehenna. They may or may not be tortured forever. If the parables acurately represent god, he will have no qualms at meting out the consequences of his divine wrath. Jesus and the saved may or may not watch the punishment of the damned. Is this what you believe? Why?
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Hell part 6
Now we come to the word Hell/hades as found in The book of Revelation. Revelation is the youngest book of the bible and written in almost purely metaphorical/symbolical apocalyptic imagery. The author is simply "John." Noone is quite sure which John he is. The book's place in the biblical canon, as well as its purpose and meaning, has been disputed throughout the centuries. We will not go into much of that here today.
The passages with hades translated to hell in the KJV:
*Rev. 1:18-Here the author sees a vision of a fantastical person who calls himself "The Alpha and the Omega"(the first and the last), "The Living One" (because he was dead but now he is alive forever and ever! Two evers make it longer.) He goes on to say he holds the keys of death and hades. This being is presumed to be Jesus. His words are in red in my NIV study bible. In Matthew 16:18 we saw Jesus say the gates of hades would not prevail, now we see his resurrected self saying he has the keys to hades. Does hell/hades actually have a gate with keys to unlock it? Job 38:17 also talks about gates of death.
*Rev. 6:8- In this passage, the author is telling about his revealed vision. There is scroll with seven seals (magical number!) being opened by a Lamb that looked like it had been slain. (Jesus, duh.) As each seal is opened something incredible happens. Seals one through four produce four horsemen. The first is a conquering king on a white horse. The second represents the violence of war on a red horse. The third represents inflation and scarcity on a black horse. The forth seal is opened and the author says he saw a pale horse and its rider was Death; Hades/hell was trailing behind him. These four horsemen were given power over 1/4 of the earth to kill by the sword, famine, plague, and wild beasts. Interesting note: the pale horse that Death rode on was actually a sickly green color. The greek word here is chloros.
*Rev. 20:13,14- This is in a famous passage about the supposed day of judgement. We read about all the dead standing before a great white throne. There were open books which held records of what the dead had done. The sea, death, and Hades/hell gave up all their dead and each person was judged according to what he had done. (Not according to what he believed?!!) Then, Death and Hades/hell were thrown into the lake of fire! What? Hades/Hell is not actually the lake of fire itself? It looks like hell/hades was just the holding place for the dead, just like Sheol. Ah, but we are not done. The lake of fire is "the second death." There was also a special book among the record books, the book of life. If anyone's name was not found in the book of life, they were thrown into the lake of fire!
What is this book of life, and who will not be in it? Ex. 32:32 Yahweh tells Moses "Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book." Daniel 12:1 talks about a book which has names written in it, but it is unclear if it the same book. Malachi 3:16 speaks of a "scroll of remembrance" in which was written the names of those who feared Yahweh and honored his name. Is that the same thing?
Who will be thrown into the lake of fire? Rev. 21:8 says it is "the cowardly, the unbelieving (uh oh), the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters, and all liars." Their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur- the second death. "He who overcomes" will not be hurt by the second death." (Rev. 2:11) But what does it mean, to overcome? We find clues in the first paragraphs of Rev. 20. Let's look at them next time. There are no more passages with the word hell/hades, but there is plenty of descriptive stuff about afterlife punishments. It seems that this "second death" is what we should really fear, not hell.
The passages with hades translated to hell in the KJV:
*Rev. 1:18-Here the author sees a vision of a fantastical person who calls himself "The Alpha and the Omega"(the first and the last), "The Living One" (because he was dead but now he is alive forever and ever! Two evers make it longer.) He goes on to say he holds the keys of death and hades. This being is presumed to be Jesus. His words are in red in my NIV study bible. In Matthew 16:18 we saw Jesus say the gates of hades would not prevail, now we see his resurrected self saying he has the keys to hades. Does hell/hades actually have a gate with keys to unlock it? Job 38:17 also talks about gates of death.
*Rev. 6:8- In this passage, the author is telling about his revealed vision. There is scroll with seven seals (magical number!) being opened by a Lamb that looked like it had been slain. (Jesus, duh.) As each seal is opened something incredible happens. Seals one through four produce four horsemen. The first is a conquering king on a white horse. The second represents the violence of war on a red horse. The third represents inflation and scarcity on a black horse. The forth seal is opened and the author says he saw a pale horse and its rider was Death; Hades/hell was trailing behind him. These four horsemen were given power over 1/4 of the earth to kill by the sword, famine, plague, and wild beasts. Interesting note: the pale horse that Death rode on was actually a sickly green color. The greek word here is chloros.
*Rev. 20:13,14- This is in a famous passage about the supposed day of judgement. We read about all the dead standing before a great white throne. There were open books which held records of what the dead had done. The sea, death, and Hades/hell gave up all their dead and each person was judged according to what he had done. (Not according to what he believed?!!) Then, Death and Hades/hell were thrown into the lake of fire! What? Hades/Hell is not actually the lake of fire itself? It looks like hell/hades was just the holding place for the dead, just like Sheol. Ah, but we are not done. The lake of fire is "the second death." There was also a special book among the record books, the book of life. If anyone's name was not found in the book of life, they were thrown into the lake of fire!
What is this book of life, and who will not be in it? Ex. 32:32 Yahweh tells Moses "Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book." Daniel 12:1 talks about a book which has names written in it, but it is unclear if it the same book. Malachi 3:16 speaks of a "scroll of remembrance" in which was written the names of those who feared Yahweh and honored his name. Is that the same thing?
Who will be thrown into the lake of fire? Rev. 21:8 says it is "the cowardly, the unbelieving (uh oh), the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters, and all liars." Their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur- the second death. "He who overcomes" will not be hurt by the second death." (Rev. 2:11) But what does it mean, to overcome? We find clues in the first paragraphs of Rev. 20. Let's look at them next time. There are no more passages with the word hell/hades, but there is plenty of descriptive stuff about afterlife punishments. It seems that this "second death" is what we should really fear, not hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)