Mark part twenty

We are at Mark 11:18. We are told that after Jesus upset the temple businesses, the chief priests and the teachers of the law began to look for a way to kill him "because they feared him." I find this patently ridiculous. They have all the power and privilege. They could have arrested him for what he did, or at least have thrown him out. I would guess that he was more of an annoyance than a fear. If they did fear him, maybe it was because they thought him mentally unstable. Besides that, Jesus has not spent any time in the Jerusalem area, until now, in the book of Mark. He cannot have been that well known. Not only that, the failed triumphal entry and the following days' events may be proof that he was totally unfamiliar with the temple and its practices.

At evening, the disciples went out of the city, unmolested by the authorities. As they were walking along the next morning, they saw the fig tree Jesus had cursed and it was "withered from the roots." Let me tell you about fig trees. I have one in my back yard. At the  time Jesus and his disciples were walking along, it was supposedly early spring, before passover. In early spring, fig plants are beginning to leaf out. They don't produce ripe fruit til the end of summer, which is why the plant had no fruit and Jesus "cursed" it. Early spring can be an unstable weather period. Hard frosts might still occur. If a hard frost happens after a fig has leafed out, it will die back. However, the great thing about figs is the  roots do stay alive. The plant will start growing back as soon as the temperatures get warm again. The person who wrote this book obviously did not know this about figs, or it didn't occur to him to question the legend.

In the story, Peter makes a big deal about the fig tree withering after Jesus cursed it. Jesus uses this event to tell the disciples to have faith that "whatever you  ask for in prayer, if you believe that you have received it....it will be yours."  He says that anyone who does not doubt in his heart, but believes what he says, could even tell a mountain to throw itself into the sea and it would be done. That is pretty specific. The fact that it's never been done must mean there has never been someone with enough faith. This also lays the blame for unanswered prayers squarely at the feet of the one who prayed. You didn't get what you prayed for? Tsk, tsk.

The disciples are heading back into Jerusalem. Bethany must have been their home base. This is the third day they went into the city from Bethany. The first was the "triumphal" entry that fell flat. The second was the fracas in the temple. Now, on the third day, Jesus is back at the temple. The chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders ask Jesus "By what authority are you doing these things?" What things is Jesus doing now to get that question? Why didn't they confront him the day before? Jesus then says if they answer his question, he will answer theirs. And they take that impertinence from him, a nobody? Are these men or mice?

Then Jesus asks them if John's baptism was from men or god, a trick question which makes the leaders look bad no matter how they answer, because everyone thought John was a prophet, except them. Frankly, John the baptist was probably more well known than Jesus. In fact, his life is better attested to in Josephus's writings than Jesus is anywhere outside the bible. This whole gospel of Mark seems to hang on the existence of John, and Jesus's revelation of the holy spirit while being baptized by him. No John, no Jesus. John is dead, so he cannot testify to Jesus's veracity, plus Jesus's ministry did not begin till after John's death, according to the book of Mark.

Now that Jesus's authority is being questioned, he deflects attention to the question of John's authority. The leaders won't answer his question, so Jesus says he won't answer theirs. Now we also do not know from where he gets his authority. More mystery.

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.

Mark part ten

We are at Mark 6:7.  Jesus is travelling around teaching. He also sent his disciples out to teach in pairs, giving them the authority to cast out demons. They also performed faith healings. Jesus gave them specific instructions which sound like a religious commitment to poverty, similar to other mendicants throughout history. They were to take no food, no money, and no extra clothing with them. They were to rely on the hospitality of the townspeople, performing a kind of curse if they were not welcomed. ("Shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.")
Basically, they became a kind of "holy" beggar. Their message was that people should repent, but repent of what?

Jesus started to become well known and King Herod heard about him. This is not the Herod (the great) that was supposedly king when Jesus was born, but Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the great. Some people were saying Jesus was John the baptist resurrected, that's why he could do miracles. (Was John the baptist also known for miracles?) Remember, Mark has Jesus's ministry starting after the death of John. This is all significant because this Herod was responsible for John's death. John the baptist had told Herod it was not lawful to marry his brother's wife, Herodias, so Herod had locked him up. Herodias was enraged, and cooked up a sneaky plot. With her daughter's help, she tricked Herod into executing John and bringing his head to her on a platter.

Herodias had an interesting family. Her parents were first cousins. Her father was killed by  her grandfather, Herod the great, when she was a child. She was married to her father's half brother Philip, then divorced and married to her other half uncle, Antipas.

Here we have the book of Mark's secular anchor in time. The events are now taking place after Herod took up with Herodias and before Herod was in a war with his first wife's father, in 36 CE. Herod was exiled in 39 CE because of the war. Herod had divorced his first wife to marry Herodias. John the baptist was supposed to have been beheaded after that. Jesus started preaching after John's death. Herod's first wife's father declared war on Herod as soon as he had his daughter safely back home. Common christianity says Jesus died around 33 CE. I think if Jesus lived and taught at the time Mark said he did, that date may be a little off. What do you think?

We are at Mark 6:30. After the apostles have been out teaching, they reported back to Jesus. They all tried to meet in a solitary place, but were recognized and followed by a crowd. So, Jesus began to teach the crowd. Along about dinner time, the apostles advised Jesus to send the people away to get something to eat. Jesus said, "you give them something to eat." The disciples were shocked that Jesus would ask them to spend the amount of money it would take to feed all the people. When Jesus asked how much food the disciples had on them, they replied, "five loaves and two fish."

Jesus had the people sit down in groups of hundreds and fifties. He looked up at the sky and gave thanks. Then he broke up the food and had the disciples distributed it. Everyone got enough to eat and there were twelve baskets full of leftovers. (Magic number alert) "The number of MEN who had eaten was five thousand." Because only men count. Get it? Did you notice that one hundred times fifty is five thousand?

More to come.

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 so gullible 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.

Mark part one

Let us begin reading Mark. Right away I notice there is no virgin birth story. There is no mother Mary and father Joseph. No divine conception of Jesus by the holy spirit. So, if Mark stood alone, we would have to assume Jesus was conceieved and birthed in the normal human way. The first chapter begins by telling us that the gospel of Jesus Christ began in Isaiah with a prophecy about a messenger who will prepare the way for the lord. And that messenger was John the baptizer. Did Mark not know of the supposed prophecy of a virgin giving birth? Wouldn't that have been a pertinent part of Jesus's back story? If Mark was the first gospel writer, did Matthew and Luke each make up their Jesus origin  stories? Both of their stories are very different after all.

Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.

At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.

While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to  water baptism. That's not what I was taught.

Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?

Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.

My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)

More to come.

Heaven part six

We will now look at Strong's concordance's list of words translated as heaven and see if we can learn anything else about this mysterious place. Will it be in the sky like it was in the Old Testament? Or will it be in some other dimension outside of space and time, as many Christians claim?

Looking at the concordance, it again appears that the vast majority of the instances of the word heaven in the New Testament are one word. This is the Greek word Ouranos, which is defined as the sky; by extension- heaven (the abode of god); by implication- happiness, power, eternity. Specific to Christianity- its usage is air, heaven, the sky. There are a very few times other Greek words are used as heaven we will address them when we get to them.

We start with the book of Matthew. In verse 3:2, John the baptist tells people to repent for the "kingdom of heaven" is at hand. I ask myself, what is this kingdom of heaven? Was it mentioned in the Old Testament? So, I did a Bible Gateway search for the phrase kingdom of heaven and looked at the results. In the Old Testament, only the book of Daniel refers to anything like a kingdom of heaven, but it doesn't use that exact phrase. What's very interesting is that in the whole New Testament, the whole bible actually, the exact phrase "kingdom of heaven" is used only in the book of Matthew. Mark, Luke, John, and the rest of the New Testament, uses "kingdom of god." Only in 2 Timothy is there mention of a "heavenly kingdom."

In Matthew 3:17, at Jesus's baptism, a voice from heaven says, "This is my son whom I love, in him I am well pleased." In 4:17, Jesus begins preaching, "repent for the kingdom of heaven is near." In 5:3, the poor in spirit have the kingdom of heaven. So do the persecuted, in verse 5:10. In 5:16 god, called "the father", is in heaven.

Matthew 5:19 tells us, "Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." What commandments is the author speaking of? Verse 5:18 tells that it is Law (of Moses). Jesus himself says in that verse that "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest stroke a pen will by any means disappear from the Law. This is sooo NOT what most of Christianity teaches. But there it is. Not only that, Jesus goes on to say in verse 20 that unless a person's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law, they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom of heaven is exclusive and works based.

In Matthew 5:34, heaven is god's throne. In 6:19 we are told to store up treasures in heaven instead of on earth. Though how we do that is a mystery. In verse 7:21, we learn that not everyone who says "lord, lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, "but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven." Jesus is speaking, calling god his father.

In Matthew 8:11 Jesus tells a Roman centurion that, "many will come from the east and the west (from outside Israel), and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom (Jews) will be thrown outside into the darkness..." Is this literal or figurative? Did Matthew believe that the Old Testament patriarchs are actually feasting in heaven? Is there food in heaven? Are there any women in heaven?

More to come.

The Nativity part 5- summary of Luke's story with comments.

Luke:

First we have two very similar stories. The angel Gabriel visits Zachariah; says,"do not be afraid;" tells him he will have a son; tells him what to name his son; tells him his son will be great; Zachariah questions this on physical grounds, the angel gives him a sign- muteness,  no one else saw the angel, his wife says Yahewh has done this for her. (Technically, it was her husband.)

Then, the angel Gabriel visits Mary; he says," do not be afraid;" tells her she will have a son, tells her what to name her son, tells her that her son will be great, Mary questions this on physical grounds, the angel gives her a sign- Elizabeth's miraculous pregnancy, no one else saw the angel, Mary declares herself to be the lord's servant. Mary saying she was a servant may have been deliberate. A woman could have both a master and a husband, if she was a slave. The child would belong to the master, no matter who had fathered it. So, we have one very old barren woman, and one very young unwed woman, both pregnant. It must be a miracle, right? Unless someone lied, stretched the truth, or made up the stories.

Next, Mary goes to the hill country of Judea all the way from Nazareth, to visit Elizabeth,  at least a several days journey on foot. Alone? Not likely. To put it bluntly, she might not have remained a virgin if she travelled alone. When she gets to Elizabeth's house, Elizabeth's baby leapt in her womb when Mary greeted her. Is it unusual for a six month old fetus to be very active inside his mother? No. Nevertheless, this was seen as a sign that what was predicted was true. Then Mary breaks out in song/poetry, praising God. Mary stays for three months, presumably till the birth of John.  Baby John is born and circumcised on the eighth day. Then Zachariah beaks out in song/poetry praising God.

Now, supposedly Mary had returned home to Nazareth and we have what feels like another story, starting in chapter two. It takes place during the census of Quirinius, which was 6 C.E. Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register for the census because he belonged to the line of David, which the Romans would not have cared about. Plus, the Census takers travelled to where the people were, not the other way around. The story does not say at what point in Mary's pregnancy they were supposed to have  travelled, but it would be incredible to think of a woman making an eighty mile trip on foot or the back of a donkey, at nine months pregnant. Only a man would think such a thing was reasonable. Anyway, the baby was born, and placed in a manger,because there was no room in the inn. Some christian scholars think "inn" should say " upper room." I think it doesn't really matter, if the likelihood that it actually happened is slim.

Then we have shepherds in the fields at night which tells us it probably wasn't winter. They saw angels who told them about Jesus and praised God. The shepherds left the sheep that were in their care to go find Jesus who they were told was the christ. After they found the baby, they went back to their sheep. On the eighth day Jesus was circumcised, after the fortieth day he was taken to the temple to be presented as a first born son. Then his parents had encounters with Simeon and Anna, who seemed to have expected him.


In this story we have no Magi, no star, no Massacre of the innocents, and no trip to Egypt.

Edited.

The Nativity part 3- the main characters

In order of appearance:

Matthew-

*Joseph- son of Jacob, the 39th generation descendant of Abraham through David, a righteous man, saw an angel in his dreams.
*Mary- virgin, pledged to marry Joseph, found to be with child through the Holy Spirit, gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem.
*Jesus-Son of Mary and the Holy Spirit, 40th generation from Abraham though not related,  born in Bethlehem, prophesy said he was to be called Immanuel but he was named Jesus.
*An angel of the lord-unknown name, appears to Joseph in dreams, does not appear to anyone else.
*King Herod-worried about his position as King of the Jews, murdered children.
*Magi- from the east, possibly Zoroastrian astrologers, found Jesus in a house and gave him presents,  outsmarted Herod.
*The chief priests and teachers of the law-Jews that Herod consulted about the Christ.

Luke-

*King Herod- King of Judea, no other info.
*Zachariah- a priest of the division of Abijah, upright, blameless, father of John, prophesied his son would be a prophet.
*Elizabeth- older cousin of Mary, mother of John, lives in a Judean hill country town, possibly Bethlehem, upright, blameless.
*An angel of the lord (Gabriel)-appears in person to Zachariah in the temple and to Mary in Nazareth, to announce that each of them would have a son and foretold the greatness of John and Jesus,told Mary to name her child Jesus, brought news of Jesus's birth to shepherds.
*Joseph-from Nazareth, a descendant of David, son of Heli (3:23),  55 generations from Abraham, 85 generations from Adam.
*Mary-lives in Nazareth, a virgin, pledged to marry Joseph, "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit which caused her to be pregnant, sang a poetic/ prophetic song.
*John (the baptist)- son of Zachariah and Elizabeth, circumcised on the eighth day, his father's prophesy said he would become a prophet.
*Caesar Augustus- emperor of Rome, issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire roman world.
*Quirinius- governor of Syria during the census.
*Jesus- conceived by the Holy Spirit, born in Bethlehem, slept in a manger, circumcised on the eighth day, Gabriel prophesied he would be called the son of the most high and would reign on the throne of David, his kingdom would never end, 56 generations from Abraham, 86 generations from Adam.
*Shepherds-living in the fields watching their flocks, given a message by an angel, saw more Angels praising God, saw Jesus in the manger.
*More Angels- praised God.
*Simeon-righteous, devout, told by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he saw the christ, saw Jesus and prophesied about Him.
*Anna- prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, eighty for year old widow, lived in the temple fasting and praying, saw Jesus and prophesied about him.

We can see that beside Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and an angel, Matthew and Luke have a completely different cast of characters. Plus, some details about the core characters differ.